Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Question page - archives

Can we alter the archive template to include a search box like WT:MILHIST, for one, does? It's not necessarily for new users, although they can use it of course, and we don't want to lose the personalised interaction but more for hosts. Inevitably we will start seeing the same questions over and over and rather than reinvent the answer each time, we could look through previous answers and use those as a basis for our answers this time. Note - the first host who uses "see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive X" in an answer gets the Marigolds and has to wash all the used teacups for a week. :-) NtheP (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has already, I'll get to work on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. The tag takes up a little more vertical space when collapsed (about half a line or so), but I'd think it's worth it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So to make the archives searchable are we stuck with that antique icon? Is there a way to not have that show up? heather walls (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just imagine it's an antique tea caddy. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to stop editing things with images turned off; didn't even realize there was one. I'll turn it off for now, but we can change it to anything we want; is there an index somewhere of Teahouse-related images? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: k, yeah, that picture was really ugly; I turned it off. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

how about

or this one

In the second one I've set |title= to null to get rid of the link to Help:Archiving a talk page. NtheP (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should definitely keep "archives" in there somewhere; it probably wouldn't be obvious to a new user what they are otherwise. I don't know that it really needs an image, tbh; jsut the word archives might be enough. It's not something that particularly needs attention drawn to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it does but lets see if the link can be turned off, I get fed up with clicking on it by mistake and being taken to the help page. NtheP (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I just put in a title parameter set to "archives". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Want to test out a new edit visualization tool?

Hi all,

Below is a call to participate in a quick user study of an editor visualization tool that my collaborator at UW is developing (I've helped a bit, but am not regularly involved). The only criteria is that you are at least somewhat familiar with the RfA process, which is the current test case for the tool. We hope to make the tool available for editors like yourselves who are interested in examining newbie contributions, so this could be a useful tool for hosts, too. It should be quick and fun! Contact Michael if you're interested. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We are looking for a few good Wikipedians to test an editor evaluation tool being developed at the University of Washington! The tool, dubbed WikiVis, is an online dashboard that provides information visualizations to gauge the level and depth of an editor's involvement in the Wikipedia community. We think this could be a great tool to inform the decision making process during an RfA evaluation, but it also allows Wikipedians to view at a high level how individual contributions can add up to create the entire Wikipedia ecosystem.

We expect the test to take around 30 - 45 minutes, during which we'll ask you to fill out a brief survey, complete the dashboard evaluation, and then answer a couple questions about how the experience went for you. If you are in the area we can host in our offices at the University of Washington (and will provide coffee and delicious snacks), or you can complete the test remotely via Skype.

If you're familiar with current Wikipedia editing policies and the Request for Adminship process, and you'd be interested in participating, please contact me at mdg@uw.edu.

- Thanks, Michael Gilbert, Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington

Is it platform-specific? Tony (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony: nope! it's web-based. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Forum

Just noticed this. Could be some interesting conversation in there. Rcsprinter (converse) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought that you weren't allowed to mention WR on Wikipedia without rubbing your hands and cackling evilly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Abd's comment is rather interesting...apparently we are all too inexperienced conflict-wise to be able to truly help newbies...durn pie-in-the-sky fanatics... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not here to help experienced Wikipedians who participate at WR. We're here to help new editors :) I don't read WR, but I'm not too worried :) I think we're doing a great job - wait until you hear the survey results! Sarah (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the worry? Isn't being discussed at WR a sign that we're doing something right...? In seriousness, being open to critical response is always a good thing, but WR is certainly not the place. Anyway, as Sarah said, we seem to be doing rather well. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed this a while back. "Yeah but you're just making a little girl sad" ...pretty much sums up what makes me sad about internet culture. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

Springtime means fresh tea leaves...

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Campus CA seeks teahouse greetings for a class

Hello! I am a campus ambassador in the Wikipedia Education Program. I have a class of about 15 graduate students at the University of Washington who are all taking a bioethics class. About half of them have put their usernames onto the course page and two of them have chosen articles. I am writing to ask if a host at the Teahouse can greet them. When I gave an in-person Wikipedia orientation to the class I told them about the Teahouse and how they could come here for questions. I appreciate that this project is here for new users. Thanks! Here is the class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Blue! It'd be great to have other campus ambassadors do the same...! Thanks again! Sarah (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

so why

so why does this page needs javascript to post a new thread and why the hell i the order of the post in the wrong order? mabdul 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer both questions: because it's easier for newbies. See here for some discussion about the thread order. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be easier for some but in my case (browser issue? ~ i am up to date with browser and java, BTW) the ask my question button doesn't work and i suspect this may be the case for others. benzband (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have Internet Explorer? IE is known to have issues with this sort of thing due to it being a piece of crap, no offense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, i tried it using Firefox and Chrome. No offence taken, as you are absolutely right about IE :-) In case it was because of Ad-blocking or preference settings, i turned the extensions off and set all prefs to allow everything… but with the same result. In any case, i just use the normal edit tab as it has the toolbar and preview functions; i just thought this may be a problem for new users that are trying to use the script when it doesn't work for them. benzband (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the end of the day, that's the thing: the Javascript is an easy (and stylish) way to do it; there's always the normal way of editing the page directly, and to be honest, I can't offhand think of a way to make a question form without JavaScript and within MediaWiki. Anyways: you're sure you have JavaScript (as distinct from Java, they're two completely different things) enabled? In Firefox, it's a checkbox under Tools/Options/Content. You might also want to try enabling the Javascript Standard Library gadget in your Wikipedia preferences; it shouldn't be the issue if your browser's up to date, but I guess ya never know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the box is ticked alright. And i just enabled the gadget but it still doesn't work: i get the box, i type, but the button just doesn't work for me. benzband (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, the box is appearing, but the submit button doesn't work? That's probably working as intended; the submit button is disabled until you've signed the post. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, i would have tried that but the input form has changed since. It sounds pretty likely, though. Thanks! Yes, that's it! i must fill in all the fields, including signature and header… *facepalm* even the newbies did better than me :D Thankyou for all the help. benzband (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them?

Your Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Gareth. Thanks! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

May I propose that each archive be kept short to facilitate referencing. That said, with the success of Teahouse since launch date, the number of archives will soon be vast. It is important that new visitors can view previous similar queries to their own current problem.

Just been comparing the first, March 1 – March 14 (59 postings) with the sixth, March 30 – April 4 (29 postings)

What are the current parameters? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The current MiszaBot settings are {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 7 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(3d) |archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive %(counter)d }}

I don't think that the archives are primarily setup for referencing by users but by hosts so dating hasn't been a concern up to now. NtheP (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Am I right in reading thus: to start a new archive after 70,000 bytes; (don't know)? ; leave 4 discussions; available to archive, if no new postings after 3 days? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview for the Teahouse

Any hosts interested, the Signpost is possibly soon going to interview the Teahouse members to go in the WikiProject section, the discussion is at my talk page. Previous Signpost coverage.Rcsprinter (shout) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Reaching out via the Feedback Dashboard

Does the Teahouse reach out to new users via the New editor feedback? (see Special:FeedbackDashboard) If not, this may be a good place to spot new editors in need of help (just look for that *angry* smiley) and welcome/assist them. benzband (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we do! Thanks for the suggestion :) You can learn more about our invitation technique during the pilot (and perhaps beyond) here. Sarah (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. All's at best then :D benzband (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Teahouse special?

I have a very serious question that relates to the previous threads but also has larger significance: why is the Teahouse special? That is, everyone knows that MediaWiki talk pages need technical improvement. So why is this page being special-cased with its own input form and custom JavaScript?

If you're going to invest thousands and thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into improving Wikipedia, why not actually improve Wikipedia? If you want top-posting behavior on a per-page basis, implement that into MediaWiki. If you think the editing form should be simpler, work on that. But I don't see how it's fair for everyone else to be stuck with what MediaWiki provides (at the Reference desk, Help desk, etc.) while the Teahouse gets special treatment.

At some point, the people involved here will go away and the Teahouse will almost certainly die. But if it can have a lasting impact (read: lasting improvements) to the software, then it won't have been a complete waste of time and resources. So it is so unreasonable to ask that it be treated like every other talk page around here and not be given special treatment? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we start with the assumption that the WMF doesn't like wasting money for no reason (which is probably a decent assumption, for all the flak they take), that would lead to the conclusion that they're starting the Teahouse because they don't agree with your premise that the Teahouse is almost certain to fail. Since their premise is different, their conclusions are different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere, MZ. This damn encyclopedia's got its hooks in me now. There's no backing out. I'm sure we'll be able to find a few good hosts to keep the Teahouse chugging along just fine, at no cost to WMF. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To second the above, the main reason I'm here is because other similar projects have died. I know that doesn't make sense, but I don't think you should assume so easily that the Teahouse will die for internal reasons. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that we've all pledged allegiance to WP:Teahouse, can we discuss the issues mentioned? I think it would be wonderful for everyone to have a better editing experience (technically speaking), not just people who would like to use Teahouse. It would seem that making the MediaWiki interface better for everyone would help power users and new editors alike (i.e. help with the whole editor retention bit). Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's totally the plan :). The issue - as raised above, massive changes and revamps cost a lot of money and staff time. If we're going to invest in them, we'd like to do so after we've got evidence that they are a good idea. That is, from my perspective as an engineering guy, one of the big advantages of having experiments like the teahouse; we can find out what works and what doesn't before fully developing it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In support of Teahouse... what a good addition to Wikipedia!

• Sarah, Thank you for your kind notice on my talk page yesterday evening. I have just posted this on an experienced user's talk page:

Thank you for stopping in at my talk page last night – I had noticed, but was too busy to reply at the time. Crzyclarks (talk) came to my attention on March 26, (his/her first edit as an IP) and with my involvement registered before making the second edit later that day.

Since then I have tried to assist and advise. Enthusiasm should be encouraged – not pounced on and intimidated.

I understand your frustration, but please "don't bite the newbie!"

With respect to your experience on Wikipedia, which far extends mine, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I consider Teahouse a very valuable tool. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: The interesting part of this example is the fact that my protogé/e uses the Discussion page, whereas the experienced user relies solely on lengthy edit summaries. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ask a question" input form

Hi. In this edit, I changed the question input form to use standard wikimarkup.

I don't think it makes any sense to introduce new users to Wikipedia with a fake input form that's used nowhere else on the site and that posts to the page in a different order than every other page. This seems horribly confusing and simply shouldn't be done. Plus there's apparently a JavaScript dependency with the current implementation, which is also very bad.

Getting new users engaged is great, but they should be introduced to the actual site, not a concocted version of it. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. The "Add a new section" thing does get rid of the "Courier maze" effect I was talking about on MZM's talk page. It also posts new questions to the bottom, as opposed to the top, but I'm not married to the idea that we should put new questions on the top, and as long as hosts are diligent about properly anchoring theeir talkbacks, guest confusion should hopefully be at a minimum. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: well, case in point right here, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Q&A widget is a pretty key component of the Teahouse design, which has been discussed extensively, and for which I've provided a pretty thorough rationale in the project description. I would haven appreciated a little discussion before the edit was made. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Several people have commented above about the issues with this input form and their comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Additionally, my comments seem to be left completely without response. Please focus on the issues being presented regarding a consistent user experience. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in on this, but maybe see above section: #so why. Also if i can leave my 2 cents: the order of the posts is was is giving the wrong idea to the supposed new users of how to use talkpages. benzband (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, more importantly, now we have questions going every which way. I'm going to change back to the previous question form for continuity's sake;nevermind,J-Mo beat me to the punch I think this is a discussion we should still have, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone give me an example of where a new editor has been contributing incorrectly to talk pages outside of the Teahouse? As J-mo said, we really put a lot of time and effort into this (we meaning everyone involved, including Werdna who created the script), and I think it's been successful (and so far no new editor have complained or shown concern in survey responses). I'd rather not see it messed up, as it is such a key component. Sarah (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted MZ's change to the Q&A form, per WP:BRD. Briefly: the q&a board is intended to provide a unique experience for new users. One of the things that many of us forget once we've been around for a while, but which I've seen time and time again in my lab's usability tests and with my students, is that talk pages are incredibly difficult for new users to get the hang of. Basically, the problem with learning the ropes on Wikipedia is that you need to be able to edit pages in order to get help on editing pages! The Teahouse Q&A forum follows paradigms that most internet users are familiar with in help forums, thus giving the user a sense of familiarity and confidence. It makes asking for help easier and less intimidating, in other words, it does in code what the Teahouse hosts do as people. I don't really think that the fact that one page on all of Wikipedia presents threads in a traditional 'feed' style (reverse-chronological) and lets people create a section in a pop up box ruins users for all other pages. And I've no indication of that in my survey or metrics so far. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A unique experience? Can you explain how changing the way users interact in their introduction to Wikipedia is beneficial? And bottom-posting is most certainly not uncommon on Internet forums, I have no idea what you're talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me to the description? I poked around Meta and couldn't find it. Also, more to Sarah's comment, is there some sort of actual metric (beyond no one complaining) to determine if this one-off interface is actually effective at getting people to then edit in the standard wiki interface? If it isn't falsifiable that easier to use intro tools recruit new editors to use traditional tools, then it is hard to judge their relative worth beyond "it seems like a good thing." I personally believe every good experiment is built to have an equal chance of failure or success and shouldn't be done with an inclination that it should succeed. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know of any cases of new posts at the top of a talk page myself, but to MBisanz's point, we have been getting complaints that people don't know how to reply to questions they've asked.[1][2] Having a fancy UI is great, but not so great when you have to abandon it immediately thereafter. I'm going to take the famed "Jefferson copout" on this one and say that, while I recognize the problem, I don't see a good solution for it.

Perhaps we should have a subpage with screenshots that's linked in the top of the Questions page, showing how do edit sections Wikipedia-style? It would also have to touch on the ordering of new sections, although if we just tell people to use the "New section" tab, that won't be too bad. I've found that the explanations I've given that are most helpful are the ones that visually demonstrate what I'm talking about, which, in the case of editing, I can't really do without a dedicated subpage.

As an aside, has anyone talked to Werdna about that extra newline the form adds before every new question? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm targeting a slightly different point, but your point is equally important. I want to know how the TeaHouse will determine if using a different UI to encourage people to first edit actually makes them more likely to learn the normal, hard way to edit? Also, I would be interested in hearing what a failure would be defined as (something like, if a new UI does not result in retention of at least X% of editors for 100 edits, it will be deemed a failure)? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Writ, there are lots of dedicated static help resources available on Wikipedia, that teach (with varying levels of success) how to do different things in this amazingly flexible content management system. But it's too much to expect every serious new editor to plow through pages of tutorial documentation before they commit their first revision. There's merit in providing a place for people to ask editing questions while they're learning how to edit. BTW, here's another link to some additional design rationale. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're patently confused. A wiki is specifically not a content management system. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: possible Javascript bugs, I'm personally less concerned with people's ability to reply to their question than I am about their ability to ask it in the first place, but I do think the bugs are cropping up frequently enough that some of us on the Teahouse 'tech team' might brainstorm potential solutions and then ping Werda. I tried to duplicate some of the eariler issues that were reported, but with no success. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're taking the completely wrong approach here. The idea is to use a reliable system (like &action=edit&section=new) and then add a layer of JavaScript that cannot break for users. This is called graceful degradation of the user interface. This is what you have not done. This is also why I'm re-reverting you. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, i think i have an answer… This potential 'bug' edit may be akin to this test edit i made, in the short period during which the javascript had been disabled and the input form was using "new section" instead. benzband (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had asked about the order of posts at #This really isn't a big deal, but, so that's the only other discussion about this (I think). Now, one point. We already see newbies getting scared off/not being able to use the "actual site", so why is it so bad to have one beginner page where the "concocted version" is easier to use? I mean, you talk about the actual site like it works... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The actual site doesn't work? How are you editing? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I do also think that this is a really bad idea! I have often turned of JavaScript and I do know many persons surfing with NoScript (so enabling JS per site basis). I still don't understand why the WMF is investing (developers time/money) to undiscussed stuff (no consensus with the community), having similar projects on hold (liquid threads) and simply don't communicate with the community! mabdul 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The actual site doesn't work for newbies. I'm basing that on the assumption that the "real Wikipedia", the bits-and-bytes section that can't retain older editors and drives off newer ones, isn't completely user-friendly. Shocking conclusion, I know. For the love of god, we constantly ask for new ideas but when we get something, it's shot down as breaking the status quo! I don't know if this Teahouse is the future. I don't know if the question form/JS is good. Maybe you are right that we shouldn't have the threads reversed. But hell, are we gonna try some new stuff or not? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting to the bottom here, since I'm having trouble following the conversation. If anyone wants to chat about this synchronously, I'm in #wikipedia-teahouse. Otherwise, we might need to start the discussion fresh... for those of us who've lost the thread. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously incapable of having a simple conversation on a talk page? If so, it's most certainly time for you to re-evaluate your role here. Otherwise, please stop stone-walling and answer the questions that have been asked of you. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MZ, your attitude in this discussion is reaching the point of trolling. Please try to find a way to take this discussion forward rather than attacking the other participants. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a discussion, but Jtmorgan is apparently unable (or unwilling) to engage. How should I proceed? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, he's asking questions and not getting answers. He's irritated, it seems, but that's hardly trolling. I suggest you not accuse someone of "trolling" for asking that his questions be answered. They seem like legitimate questions to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea…

(edit conflict) Yes, i agree that this discussion would be *much* easier to follow if it was backwards… :D however it isn't so we'll just have to deal with it nicely. This is the teahouse, isn't it? I propose a nice cup of tea and a sitdown, if that's ok with everyone. benzband (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I saw this disagreement mentioned on irc, and as an uninvolved admin, I'd like to just ask you all to focus on discussing the change/lack thereof rather than reverting each other. You all appear to have a legitimate philosophical disagreement on what the best way is to format the form; it's great that you're discussing here already, but you need to keep in mind that discussions like this are intended to replace reverting each other - everyone tacitly agrees to keep their fingers off the "undo" button until a consensus can be reached by talking it through - not to happen alongside it. No matter what version the form is currently on when I hit the save button on this note, please, all of you, leave it that way while you hash out the disagreement here. And while we're at it, let's avoid assuming bad faith, calling each other names, and various other things the Teahouse is intended to help Wikipedians learn to avoid. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I guess this is getting lost, so I'm sub-sectioning for clarity. The issues with the JavaScript input form wrapper are:

1. inconsistent interface — new users see a different input form here than they do everywhere else;
2. inconsistent posting behavior — everywhere else posts go to the bottom; here posts go to the top; and
3. no fallback — if you don't have JavaScript enabled in your browser, you can't post.

Some of these technical issues could be fixed in theory, but the philosophical issue (i.e., using a separate JavaScript interface here at all) is probably the largest issue and it has no real technical answer (other than reverting to the standard MediaWiki input form). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 3- You can always post in the regular way, the standard page interface is not disabled. heather walls (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Disable the gadget in your user preferences and then try to add a question. :-) There's no "new section" link and the most prominent link (the one that says "Click here to ask a question") doesn't work at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As a technical issue, this (#3) should be easy to address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the "new section link", well, it's never going to be there regardless of the JS widget, because IIRC, that button only shows up on talk pages, and the questions page is in the WP namespace. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the code __NEWSECTIONLINK__ can add a "new section" tab to any page, regardless of the namespace (see WP:+). benzband (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, didn't know about that. I put it in; no reason not to. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! benzband (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the issues and a good starting point for discussion. My personal opinion (FYI, I'm not involved in the Teahouse) is that 2 and 3 are legitimate issues, while 1 is somewhat dubious. We commonly have specialized interfaces for specialized tasks: UploadWizard, WikiLove, Twinkle, ArticleFeedback, Moodbar, AjaxQuickDelete, etc. As long as the entry point to the interface is distinct, I don't think this is overly confusing to new users. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those utilities are discussion boards while this page essentially is. Killiondude (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything against returning #2 to standard wiki behavior, as long as things are properly anchored. Shouldn't be a big deal, and that's probably the most important difference of the three. I think that, as long as users are allowed to see what they posted, they'll figure it out. As for #1, well, I'm not sure why it matters that much that we have it; I don't think it hurts anything to make asking questions as easy as possible, and it seems to accomplish that. I don't think it's really all that different from the new section page, so I really don't care all that much. Guests seem to respond to it, though, so why not keep it in?

That said, though, I do think we need to be more explicit (by which I mean we need to mention it somewhere) about how to edit things the "normal" way, rather than the "Teahouse" way. After all, we want guests to be able to go back and reply to the questions they asked, and several users have said that they don't know how to do that. A simplified description of how to post, with screenshots, would probably help with this, while simultaneously emphasizing that this question form is not how Wikipedia normally works. I don't see why the interface here *has* to be the same as the interface elsewhere (given that we do implement the failover as noted in #3), but if it's not the same, we should say that it's not the same. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari: as Killiondude notes, your argument holds little weight when you examine the "specialized task" here. There isn't anything special here (cf. #Why is the Teahouse special?). Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions is simply yet another help forum similar to the Reference desk or Help desk. If you want to provide a generic tool to make posting to talk pages easier, I'm all for it. If you want to deploy some special JavaScript that's completely specific to this one project—a project that will almost certainly be dead in six months, much less a year—I think it's silly and inappropriate.

Some of us have to think about the ramifications of Wikimedia staff actions after the initiative dies. Some of us aren't contractors; some of us have been around before the Earth-shattering and life-changing development of the Teahouse and some of us will still be here after it's gone and the consultants and contractors have moved on to other fads. If so much time and money is going to be invested in changing how users interact with the site, I'd like for that not to be wasted on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little curious as to the massive amount of time and energy the WMF is spending on the Teahouse that you keep referring to...I may be wrong, but that's not the impression I've gotten in my brief conversations with Heather and Jonathan...of course, extravagance is in the eye of the beholder... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How many full-time staff or contractors are working on this? I count three or four. Then compare that to the number of full-time staff or contractors working on every other non-Wikipedia project. That would be a 300% or 400% increase, wouldn't it? Yowza. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to them to answer, but again, I don't think they're "full-time staff or contractors" in the sense you're thinking of...maybe I'm wrong. Dunno - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I count two staffers, and two part-timers - all of whom are spending a small chunk of their time on this project. It's by no means the only thing they do all day :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm half time with WMF, MZ. Teahouse work has comprises between 50% and 90% of my (compensated) work during any given week, since about January. I also support other fellowship projects and project proposals, and sometimes do light analytics work for folks in Community and Global Dev, mostly because I have an active Toolserver account. Sarah's half time too. Heather is < half time: in fact, the vast majority of the work she does on Teahouse is on a voluntary basis. Siko Bouterse, the Head of Community Fellowships, divides her time between Teahouse and many other fellowship projects and project proposals. That, and any hours Werdna billed for writing the script, constitutes the sum total of foundation resource outlay for Teahouse, as near as I can figure. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of WMF employees doesn't solve the named problems - even without them, I still think that the order of threads shouldn't be changed only for one page! mabdul 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive Index

I have noticed several archive-related sections so i'll post in a new one. Talk:Iraq War/Archive index is an example of an archive index. This would be really convenient for finding questions and so on (from the WP:Teahouse/Questions). benzband (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Writ Keeper. See User talk:Writ Keeper, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index and this diff. benzband (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to clarify all questions now go to the bottom?

All questions are now going to the bottom of the page. Is this what consensus agreed on? A lot has been going on in the past two days, so just trying to get my bearings. I've been so used to the process at the Teahouse now I'm all dizzy. Sarah (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions still currently go to the top. heather walls (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The deal is that we've implemented a fallback method for posting questions, should the Javascript gadget not work; this fallback method posts questions to the bottom, while the JS gadget posts to the top. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, you know I'm terrible with this stuff, just to clarify

If a user has Javascript enabled the question goes to the top? And if they do not, it goes to the bottom? Sarah (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Sarah (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which, in itself, is probably the most convincing argument in favor of switching the JS to bottom-posting, really. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm completely lost, I shall continue to rely on my watchlist to tell me when there are new questions to address. NtheP (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Find the answer here"

In "Recent Questions", the "find the answer here" doesn't link to the question. Seems that ought to happen. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is operated from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-box, and selects questions to display via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent. So far it's done manually. I don't know much about this feature but i think something should be done to make this easier to use. (looking in to it) benzband (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This was noticed earlier...I think it might have had something to do with the section headers and a lack of anchors, or something. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Fixed - now the links point to the exact section (because i have localized them on each subpage via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-answer). Thanks! However, these pages are going to need regular updating as the questions get archived pretty quickly… benzband (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be better to permalink them, once they're answered, so that archiving doesn't affect it. Perhaps another job for HostBot? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you've got me lost there, so if you could explain :) or look into it yourself please do >.< benzband (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it'd be statically linking to the revision of the page that has the answer. Isn't affected by changes made later, including archiving. I'd leave it like it is for now, because it also wouldn't display any further answers after the link is made. We'd really need a bot to keep it all up to date, no matter what we do; something to discuss with J-Mo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are currently several "featuring" devices running on the Teahouse main page. How about putting guests all on their own subpages so that the featuring process runs by itself using {{random subpage}}, and you only need to create the pages once each? Seems like me to be a much easier solution than the current one of updating a few subpages (like with the questions) :/ benzband (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you want the questions to display the entire answer in the box on the front page? I think it might be better to show it without the answer or just one or two (after all we *are* saying "go here to see the answer"). Those answers can get pretty long and create that wall-of-text we are trying to avoid. heather walls (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we're just trying to find a solution for the link itself (link to the answer, that is). The problem is that once the question is archived, the link breaks. Writ proposed linking to a particular diff/revision, but only linking (that would have it's drawbacks though, such as not showing subsequent answers to the question). benzband (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My idea is to automate the linking via Hostbot. Basically, it should check the page, and if a thread hasn't shown any activity in two days or so, the bot creates a permalink to that page. If someone answers it afterwards, hostbot can update accordingly. Otherwise, it gets archived and it doesn't matter. Alternately, it could do anchored links, scan for when things get archived, and then update the anchored link to point to the appropriate archive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ah. benzband (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper above. Automate the system as much as possible. --Nathan2055^talk 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Success?

Just been taking a look at The Teahouse on stats.grok.se. Interesting? benzband (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with stats is that they track every single visit - I've probably looked at the main Teahouse page 2,000 times at this point in 90 days :) The biggest successes will be if metrics show that we are retaining new editors who have participated or visited the Teahouse. You can learn more about our project goals here. Always fun to see though. I wonder how many of those hits are new editors we invited that didn't participate, or mad Wikipedians ;) Sarah (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheshire cat reasoning on the madness, I take it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

well, now we're in Phase 4 - Launch (Feb, March, April): "Deliverable: Invite at least 75 promising new editors per week and turn them into engaged Wikipedians." From the project goals meta:Research:Teahouse#Goals. So with the minimum of 75 "promising new editors per week", what is the definition of turning them into "engaged Wikipedians"? What are the criteria for "engaged"? What's going on? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew! I was the one who helped Sarah and J-Mo design the goals and metrics of success for their fellowship project (I ask every fellow to basically spend a bit of the time at the start of their project explaining what they imagine a successful outcome might look like), so maybe I can help shed some light on this :-) Apologies in advance for what will be a long post, but your question is pointing out to me what's really missing in that plan page - the thought process behind the text!

When we started building a plan on that page, we wanted to set some goals around the overall number of new editors that we thought we would try to engage with in the Teahouse, and what we hoped some outcomes would be as a result of working with these new editors. The purpose of this was to give those working on the project a loose approximation of something to aim for. Some background about the thinking behind this goal (which could probably be phrased better - suggestions always welcome!): As you know, many people register accounts on Wikipedia and never make a single edit after that. Some others make edits on their userpage or in their sandbox and then never come back again. Lots of them never read their talk page or respond to messages left there (which can be pretty frustrating to anyone trying to get a new editor's attention to correct mistakes, as we all know!). Because we knew this going into the project, and we know that volunteer time is precious, we gave some thought to what kind of editors might be most likely to continue to contribute if given some extra encouragement and an additional opportunity to ask questions early on. At the time that someone registers an account, there is really no way of knowing if they're going to stick around to edit, so we didn't want to just target new accounts. We thought it would be best to focus on editors who have already shown a few good faith edits, as an indication that they have already invested a bit of time in learning the ropes and in hopes that they'll respond to an offer of help, stick around and eventually become an active member of the community. This is what was intended by "promising new editors". In some ways, it is meant as a corollary to how the adopt-a-user program works. Experienced Wikipedians in that program focus on providing intensive 1:1 mentoring to editors who express the intention of becoming long-term contributors and members of the community, because its often not worth the trouble to mentor someone who isn't going to stay around. We thought this made good sense and wanted to do something similar so that hosts are spending time with new editors who have a good chance of staying around past their registration date, but we also wanted to make sure we're available to new editors who aren't being served through adoption or other programs. At this point, the project is definitely not serving as many new editors each week as we said we'd like to in that goal, I think we've got about half that many asking questions in the Teahouse each week. As the Teahouse is still in pilot and there aren't a lot of obvious ways for new editors to find Teahouse outside of talk page invitations, the project is falling a bit behind the sheer number in that goal, but I also think it's ok, frankly, because quantity isn't all that matters :-) If we had only one new editor coming to the Teahouse each week, though, by now we'd know this project had failed.

Now, getting to the bit about "turning them into engaged Wikipedians". Again, the intention here (and again perhaps not best worded...open to suggestion!) was about giving new editors enough encouragement and help early on in their editing career to keep them coming back to edit and become an active part of the community. Engagement is a tricky thing to measure, as you point out the criteria can be pretty fuzzy. So, we came up with a set of metrics that we thought might be useful to measure this. If you look at the metrics section on that page, you'll see we're interested in looking at what happens later on to new editors who visit the Teahouse compared to new editors who don't. An engaged Wikipedian should probably get blocked less often and edit more often than an editor who isn't going to stay with the project. They should probably have less warnings and create more content that persists and isn't reverted. They should go participate in other projects on Wikipedia with other editors, so maybe they join a Wikiproject or contribute to the Signpost or fight vandalism or participate in DR. In short, they start to become an active member of the community. Its likely that we can't measure every detail of outcomes that we'd like during the pilot, but the intention is to try to measure as much as possible and see if there's any indication that the kind of support being offered in this project has a positive impact on editor retention. To my mind, you can't retain an editor who isn't a productive and accepted member of the community, that would be a waste of everyone's time. We're not waiting til the end of the pilot to measure what's happening, so I would encourage everyone who is interested to have a look at this initial metrics reporting page on meta too. To my mind we're still definitely in the "success?" phase, but the initial feedback from guests, activity on the Q&A board (many good quality questions and answers are coming through there!), and early comparative retention sample is looking promising. Again, apologies for the long-winded post, whew! But I hope this gives you some more insight into the intentions of the team's goals and metrics, and I'm looking forward to hearing more thoughts and feedback :-) Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Q&A Gadget - a proposed solution to the current edit war

So, as most of you know, there's an ongoing discussion (and unfortunately, an edit war) around the Teahouse Q&A Gadget. MZMcBride disabled the gadget earlier today, citing a number of concerns. Since I'm more-or-less responsible for the how the Q&A board functions (along with HeatherWalls, and Werda, who wrote the javascript that powers the Q&A gadget), I've been trying to figure out a way to address these concerns without breaking critical functionality of the Teahouse for new editors: this functionality allow even the newest editor to ask questions and ask for help without having to deal with confusing markup, or read a lengthy tutorial, or worry about 'breaking' something with their edits.

MZ's concerns, as I understand them after several hours in IRC, are mostly as follows. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've missed something or misrepresented him:

1. There is no reason to do anything special for new editors here, the regular editing interface is easy enough.
2. Implementing a pop-up box that appears when you click a link, on a single page on Wikipedia, will confuse new users because they won't see that functionality on other pages
3. The Q&A gadget puts new sections at the top of the Q&A forum, rather than the bottom, which is unlike any other discussion forum on Wikipedia
4. This reverse-chronological ordering sometimes causes unpredictable behavior, such as when someone asks a new question as you are editing a section on the page (this issue has also been raised by Teahouse hosts).
5. The Q&A widget teaches new editors bad editing habits

For my part, these are the functions of the Q&A gadget that I believe are the most vital (in order of ‘’vitality’’):

1. it allows a user to ask a question without having to read or write markup.
2. it allows a user to ask a question without taking them to a different page.
3. it shows the most recent questions first by default, which advertises to new editors who are visiting the page for the first time that the page is active, and that their questions will be answered here.
4. it follows a ‘newest thread at the top’ paradigm which is familiar to many internet users from other Q&A forums such as AskMetaFilter, StackOverflow, Yahoo Answers, as well as many online comment boards.
5. it teaches users good habits, prompting them to sign their posts with four tildes before they are able to post a question (a habit that often takes time for new editors to learn).

So far, our survey of 160 new editors and our preliminary retention metrics do not suggest that the Gadget is a major stumbling block for new editors. In fact, our early results suggest that the Teahouse, its hosts, and its Q&A board, are providing a valuable service to new editors. Furthermore, previous research suggests that new editors to Wikipedia find the technical aspects of editing to be very challenging. To this end, the Q&A Gadget provides something especially important, which to my knowledge is not provided anywhere else on Wikipedia: it provides a way of asking a question about editing without having to edit in order to ask the question. Since the target audience of Teahouse is brand new editors (unlike more general help spaces, like the Help Desk), this is an especially important consideration.

However, I understand that there are valid concerns over the way the Q&A Gadget functions. In particular, MZMcBride’s and others’ concern that the newest-on-top feature might be confusing or misleading, and that it can lead to unpredictable behavior in the editing interface, seems particularly salient. So I’d like your input on what I see as one of the main questions here, and a possible compromise solution:

• do you believe that the Q&A Gadget should be changed so that new questions appear at the bottom of the page, rather than the top?

I would also be interested in hearing about particular experiences you’ve had that pertain to the discussion: for instance, examples of Teahouse guests who struggled with this gadget, or new editors who have struggled with talk page markup in other forums.

I started researching Wikipedia, and then editing Wikipedia, and then working with the foundation because I believe in Wikipedia and want it to continue to be the biggest and best information resources on the planet. I do a lot of research on the so-called “editor decline”, and the factors that may be contributing to it. For me, the bottom line is that in order to remain dynamic, open and accurate, Wikipedia needs to retain more new editors than it is today. I work on the Teahouse because I believe in the power of early intervention coupled with a welcoming atmosphere and user-friendly tools. But we can’t offer that if we’re edit warring over a piece of core functionality. What do you all think is the solution here? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking personally, I'm fine with the top-posting. Sure, it's not standard, but standard isn't right. The teahouse is primarily about acting as a testbed to see what happens when we mess around with things; what changes lead to positive improvements? If it turns out that top-posting is actually a lot better for the modern world, the question should not be "why does the teahouse top-post?" but "why doesn't anyone else?". And if it turns out top-posting is this neutral or even negative thing, we can give up on it in time. But we need to let this run until we can find out. Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think special-casing is bad. If you want this feature in MediaWiki, see to it that it gets implemented and we can all benefit from the wonders of top-posting. If that isn't possible, use the available tools in the standard interface. It's as simple as that for me. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is top posting hardcoded into the gadget? If it's as simple as making it conform with other talk page conventions, let's just do that and enable it. I agree about the top posting annoyance, but it's completely obvious that the gadget makes it easier for newbies, and is thus valuable to have. The whole point of having this pilot is to try some new things, so your argument that we can't have special cases for experiments is nonsensical. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    I believe top-posting is hard coded, tho I haven't seen that code myself. However, if there's consensus to make that switch I bet I could ply Werdna with Tim-Tams and get him to make the change. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be completely honest, I'm fine either way. That said, I don't think we should change it just because it is different from 'normal Wikipedia'. If there is a legitimate concern that we are teaching them bad habits, that's one thing. Make the form post like normal, and, if need be, maybe put a note next to the instructions to sign that says that messages will be posted to the bottom. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with Nolelover, but I do think it is a justifiable question to ask if top posting is easier, preferable and/or an assistance to new editors and I don't see any problem in conducting a trial here. If it needs greater explanation to new editors that, currently, this page is a one off and bottom posting is the norm, then that needs to be addressed. If it needs a gadget to do that, again as an aide to research then it should be tolerated for the duration of a pilot, if indeed The Teahouse is a pilot for something/anything. NtheP (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Solution to no-JS fallback problem

I've created a new Question link template that should be able to function either with or without JavaScript. It depends on some CSS and JS changes, so we'll need to wait until the caches expire before trying it out. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this works, Kaldari; with the widget enabled, it's bringing up the widget and then redirecting immediately. We need to have the event handler return false, to prevent the default action of following the href. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Never mind, it seems to be working now. I swear I cleared my cache. I think it has to do with that I had just looked at the source, saw that it *should* work, and then it actually started to work. Reminds me of a thing I heard somewhere before about enlightenment... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this. :-) We had similar thoughts about how to resolve the JavaScript fallback issue.

Minor point: any reason "//en.wikipedia.org..." can't be switched to "{{fullurl:...}}"? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kaldari, could I get you to change the line "var newText = oldText.replace( /^==/m, "\n"+wikitext+"==" );" to "var newText = oldText.replace( /^==/m, wikitext+"==" );" (basically removing that newline)? This should get rid of the problem we're having, where we're getting a newline added every time someone asks a question. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@MZM: Yeah; when one uses the fullurl template, it percent-encodes the ?, =, and & characters, which need to be unencoded to pass GET parameters to the linked page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(Upon reflection, I actually don't know how much technical knowledge you have, so forgive me if this repeats what you already know.)

The url in question ("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=new"), as you can see, has the characters ?, =, and & in it. These characters are used to pass information to the page the URL links to; in this case, it tells the Teahouse Questions page that we want to edit the page, and that we want to start a new section. Trying to use the fullurl template changes the ?, =, and & characters to their percent-encoded equivalents, which basically means they lose their special meaning and just become part of the page to be redirected to, and the information doesn't get passed to the page. If you used the fullurl version, instead of taking you to the WP:Teahouse/Questions page in new section edit mode, it takes you to the nonexistent page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions?action=edit&section=new. I looked at the source for the fullurl template, and it doesn't look like there's any way around that; do you know of one? (And what's the benefit of using fullurl anyway?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My issue isn't your lack of technical knowledge. My issue is that you put up the appearance of technical knowledge that happens to be completely wrong.

{{fullurl:}} isn't a template, it's a magic word. It made more sense when there were https://secure.wikimedia.org and http://en.wikipedia.org links. Based on how a user viewed the page, the output changed. Similarly it now accounts for https://en.wikipedia.org vs. http://en.wikipedia.org access, though the ability to use protocol-relative syntax (i.e., //en.wikipedia.org) has made the {{fullurl:}} magic word less relevant. It still prevents hard-coding of the site's URL, however, so it should be used when possible.

The issue you're encountering comes from misuse of the magic word. [{{fullurl:Hello?action=edit&section=new}} click here] will produce click here, which is in fact wrong, as you note. But as the documentation explains, the format is [{{fullurl:Hello|action=edit&section=new}} click here] (note the pipe), which produces click here, a perfectly valid and working URL. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Hard-coding the site's URL is bad as it isn't guaranteed to never change. For example, many moons ago, wikipedia.com became en.wikipedia.org. There are server-side redirects in place, but it's nicer to not have to go through redirects. Avoiding hard-coding also makes it possible to directly copy and paste the code to other sites without having to adjust it.

snark aside, Thanks. I was looking at a different thing that was a template; not sure how I didn't notice that it wasn't the same thing you were talking about. Yeah, no reason not to use that. UPDATE: done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I've put the new link in place and it seems to be working. I also fixed the newline issue. If people report any problems with it, feel free to revert my change on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Also, while I was testing I noticed that the interface definitely needs a spinner while the API request is going through. Otherwise, it just leaves the user hanging for a couple seconds with no visual feedback. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it not? For some reason I thought it did... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just checked this out. When I click "Ask a Question", the pop-up question box shows up for a second, then I get redirected to the "new section" page. This happens whether or not I'm logged in. Is this the intended functionality? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Try looking at the source. Once I had looked at the source and realized that it shouldn't do that, it stopped doing that. (Or, alternately, are you sure you cleared your cache?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite being totally clueless on what language you guys are speaking, I have cleared my cache and it works! Huzzah! Sarah (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Derp. Cache cleared. Functionality restored. We should add in a bulletin somewhere near the top of the page, instructing visitors to clear their caches, so that repeat visitors don't encounter that same problem. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the client-side cache is set to last 4 days. I'm going to go ahead and revert the page back to the old template for now, wait 3 days, and then switch it back. That way people who have the old gadget js and css cached won't experience any weird behavior. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I think I've figured out adding a spinny thing (File:24px-spinner-black.gif) to the prompt that shows up right next to the submit button when it's clicked. I think the code here should work, but I haven't tested it and to be honest, I'm a little puzzled on how to go about testing it. Anyone care to take a look? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The spinner works for me, Writ. Thanks! heather walls (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that wasn't me. I thought there was a spinner already implemented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that I am a bit late to the party, but my thoughts on the issue:

The popup gadget and the top positioning is one of the greatest things of the Teahouse (us hosts being up there with it). It not only makes the technical stuff much simpler but actually teaches one of the very hard things to teach about wikimarkup "sign all your messages with four tildes". Without the four tildes the button wont be enabled, beautiful.

The top positioning is a very useful tool, not only does it make it simpler for newbies to find questions and answers but it actually helps the hosts in seeming what questions need attention.

The argument seems to be based entirely on tradition and uniformity, to me that sounds absurd. If the matter with technical mediawiki behavior is actually insurmountable then the top positioning should be done away with, otherwise uniformity with the rest of Wikipedia is not enough of a reason. Is there any evidence that new editors find it difficult to understand the ways of Wikipedia after visiting the Teahouse? Is there one case where this has been significant?

As a final note, The Teahouse is in my experience the most quick-paced area of Wikipedia, sometimes we provide answers faster and more accurately than what editors get in IRC. That also is significantly different than on other areas of Wikipedia, should we slow our response time down to match the rest of Wikipedia as well? And on this topic I have actually found editors that have been confused by this.

Chico Venancio (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say here Chico. And no please do not slow down your responses. Visitor surveys from the Teahouse show that they appreciate the fast responses - I do too! And of course, don't forget to keep on inviting!!! Sarah (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that 4 days have passed, I've switched in the Ask template with the non-JS fallback. Hopefully all the caches have expired at this point. Kaldari (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I be A host AT TEAHOUSE?

Please?Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Monareal, there's some details on how to become a host here, good luck! Worm^TT · (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

Wikipedia:Tutorial talk pages have been getting used a lot as sandboxes lately and do get questions. Don't know if you have an "ad" to put on such pages, but would be great if someone could put one on the talk pages. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Carol. I'm certainly in favor of this idea. But we have to be careful. We got our hands slapped for adding Teahouse links to the welcome template with insufficient community input. So I'm thinkin' we'll need to request comment in a suitable location for an appropriate period of time first. Anyone have any suggestions about what that location/time period might be? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to know since I was thinking of advertising WP:Workshop. One reason I held up was I discovered Wikipedia:Help Project (as well as Category:Wikipedia_help_projects). I think all of us interested in help and education probably should use it to coordinate better. It's only occasionally used but could be a useful resource. I cleaned up the main page a bit but probably needs better organization. Didn't get a response when posted on talk page. Also just noticed there Wikipedia:Help pages redesign project. Let's collaborate! CarolMooreDC 14:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost will be covering the new help-pages community fellowship in this week's edition. Tony (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. Hope it mentions there IS a Wikipedia:Help Project. (Which is described as a wikiproject though it doesn't have that official name. ;-) (So confusing sometimes; another reason redesign needed.) CarolMooreDC 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple messages in different places?

Hi. i thought I'd ask this here, since it's to do with the Teahouse. I got a message left on Friday on my talk page here, from someone promoting the Teahouse, I think their name was Heatheradams. No problem, always nice to be invited somewhere to talk, I thought. A few moments later, i logged into my email account and was surprised to find a Wikipedia email from... you guessed it, Heatheradams - telling me all about the Teahouse and inviting me to come along, precisely the same information I'd had in the message left on my talk page. Is it possible you could pick one way or the other of contacting people, please, instead of sending the same info about the same thing to more than one place? I'm sure if it were left here, I'd see it when I logged in here - no need to flypost it :) MarkBurberry32 talk 01:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you were distressed by this, we send emails as well as talk messages to get the attention of newbies who may not check their talk pages. Our research indicates we get a lot more responses this way and many people who may otherwise be too afraid/shy to ask actually start participating in Wikipedia probably because of the emails. We can't just drop the talk page messages because it is necessary for transparency (many don't allow for emails to be sent as well) and we don't want to drop the emails because the response rate is much higher.

Anyways, we only send emails for invitations. Since you're already invited you probably won't get another from us. You can always disable the email in your preferences if you wish as well. Chico Venancio (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Right - first of all, what makes you think I'm distressed by it? It's not like I'm in tears or about to have a nervous breakdown because someone emailed me - and second of all, how can people possibly ignore checking their talk page with a half inch wide bright yellow banner screaming "You have new messages" posted at the top of their pages constantly while working? :) That must annoy the heck out of people. MarkBurberry32 talk 10:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why but the numbers are quite different in the group that received email and the one that only got a talk page message. The two theories I got is that we get people who don't log on to Wikipedia and get them to be a bit more involved (which would be awesome), or maybe they feel more at ease with the email message (a system they are more familiar with). Anyways, it does make quite a difference in the response rate. Chico Venancio (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that when emailing you through Wikipedia no one can see what your address is; also it is practical to have it enabled for various reasons (e.g. for messaging about something one doesn't wish publicly displayed on a talkpage). So, enabling email won't affect your security (and if it's being misused you can report it anyway). benzband (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It may seem crazy to you, but I have seen people completely miss that bright orange banner. Then they come and tell us that we should have told them that they had messages.... :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

a sense of proportion

We have got entries for american garage bands on wikipedia. Yet my first article on European Science Cloud Computing "Helix Nebula" which CERN has proposed as the future platform for scientific resource intensive computing environment, got rejected multiple times. Once even by a certain high school student. Now I an a space technology scientist in my day job, and I heard from a collegue of mine that his article on "Globwave" a very important ocean science research project also got eliminated by self-important wikipedia editors. I am guessing these individuals are immature folks with lot of time on their hands to do hundreds of edits and get to admin superuser level, and then who is to stop them from feeling important by rejecting real entries of overwhelming human interest. This is the price we pay for a "open" and "self regulating" system. What a shame !!

Aryabhatta (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Did you create the article yourself? I can not find in Special:Contributions/Aryabhatta your contribution page, also the page Helix Nebula Science Cloud has not been deleted. I feel you submitted the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Helix Nebula Science Cloud, where it was rejected. You can go haead and start writing the article if you feel there will be no problem with WP:Notability, you will get help WP:Your first article. (BTW, since your username is Aryabhatta, if it is inspired by mathematician Aryabhata of Kusumpura can you tell me which is the correct spelling Aryabhata or Aryabhatta? You don't need to answer it here, you can post in my talk page.) Let me know if you have question! --Tito Dutta ^Message 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aryabhatta, thanks for coming to the Teahouse! Just like the articles and software, the way Wikipedia works is always developing. Finding evidence that something was done wrong (if it was) is not a reason to throw out practices that have been reasonably established (sometimes someone just hasn't gotten to it yet). Do you want help with your article? Part of the reason the Teahouse is here is to improve the process and get great editors and articles into Wikipedia. How can we help you add excellent content to Wikipedia?

Your first reviewer even said, "I would recommend either significantly expanding this article, so it is structured according to a Wikipedia article format, or consider merging it into some other appropriate existing article. The latter is less desirable than the former, as the topic is very notable!" which is really encouraging. The talk page for your article suggests that you need inline citations. One of the hosts here should be able to give you specific help with this if you ask for it back on the question page. heather walls (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aryabhatta. I do not think things are quite that bad. I am not an admin myself but I have seen that the selection process for admins is very rigorous, not to say brutal, and admins do not have any special status regarding content. Articles are kept or rejected depending on whether they show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It seems that garage bands often do meet those criteria but as this is not a paper encyclopedia you do not have to see them.--Charles (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good day, Aryabhatta! I am FeralOink, one of the reviewers of the article you submitted. I am not the high school student* to whom you referred. I suspect that I am self-important, and would not deny an occasional tendency toward adolescent behavior. Despite that, I am a fully mature 45 year old woman. I attended graduate school at the institution where the patron of the Helix Nebula project, CERN, had (and probably continues to have) close ties, namely, the "S" in "SLAC" a.k.a. the Stanford Linear Accelerator. I am disclosing this because I would be most pleased to see articles in Wikipedia that are about topics such as scientific computing, including those of the resource-intensive variety, particularly Helix Nebula. It would please me greatly if I could invoke superuser admin powers, as you alluded to, and henceforth interdict all American (and other nations') garage band entries on Wikipedia. Since I know that I have such biases, I avoid activity on that subject.

Let us address your concerns The primary objection that I had to your article was that it consisted of merely four sentences of text. There was no additional content e.g. diagrams, illustrations or other inserts. There were three external links provided at the end of the four sentences. One was a press release from CERN itself. The other was an article from Wired Magazine. I don't recall the third one. Finally, and I do regret how this may have seemed officious, I questioned the inconsistency between the name and capitalization of Helix Nebula. Names are very important, in distinguishing, or disambiguating, the bona fide from the, well, not bona fide. The CERN press release referred to the project using a slightly different name, and capitalization, than in your article for submission. It is vital to have the Wikipedia article entry in agreement with CERN.

I do not question the notability of Helix Nebula. Yet without more than four sentences of detail, it was not possible to determine the status of the project. Has it been approved? Has it been funded yet? Is there a project team assigned for implementation and is work in progress? Or is the project nearing completion or in use? All will be resolved with more content.

Some suggestions Use the Wikipedia format in the most basic form, i.e. a few number headings with associated content. Some ideas to start consider: One: An introduction; Two: Background or History; Three: Goals, significance, accomplishments or such, and possibly some of the project participants; Four: Mention of controversies, but if and only if any exist!

I hope this is helpful. I realize it is lengthy. I do not want you to be discouraged! If you would like, I would be pleased to have a look at your colleague's article that was declined, as ocean science research is also a worthy, notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. --FeralOink (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can of worms: reopened

Okay, so we've been getting a significant number of people who are posting at the bottom of the page. Whether this is through the non-js fallback or whatever, I don't know, but it seems to be happening a lot. I think we should just bow to the software issues and make the JS post questions to the bottom. I can't imagine that it will cause more confusion than continually moving questions from the bottom to the top. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would make a pretty big bet that this is because we added the New section tab. Unfortunately, no one ever seems to answer the questions if we leave them on the bottom, it also leaves the top of the page static for days (as in, nothing new shows up). The page gets really long, and frankly, scrolling to the bottom of every long talk page gets pretty tiresome. I would rather remove the New section tab, personally. heather walls (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 Sarah (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them are attributable to the new section tab. here's one that isn't. You can tell this by the edit summary: with the new section tab, the summary is automatically generated as /*<section title>*/ new section. Since the linked diff doesn't match, it wasn't through the new section tab. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it's not all of them, we had a few that way before we added the tab. It was significantly less, though. heather walls (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

But we've also instituted the non-js fallback around the same time; they could be attributable to that. That said, I don't have any objection to removing the new section link, so I have. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

True! They totally could. heather walls (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (the lazy scroller)

Actually, I would prefer if just put new threads at the bottom like the rest of Wikipedia. It can confuse new and old users alike when every other discussion page works one way, and this page works differently. It would be much preferable to just follow the standard. If the page is getting to long, then we just need to archive more often. At least every other time I load or work on this page, I forget that it works backwards, and being different from the rest of Wikipedia just isn't working. I fully understand the reason why it is the way it is, I just think that that reason is insufficient to overcome the negatives in the current organization system. That is, after a few weeks of evaluation, I think it would be better if we worked just like the rest of Wikipedia done, even in light of all of the justifications which exist for the current organization scheme. On the balance, it would just be better if we weren't different. --Jayron32 18:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already made my arguments as to why I disagree with bottom-posting, and things actually seem to work quite well until we confuse things with added interface that inherently conflicts. So far no one who has said, "being different from the rest of Wikipedia just isn't working" has provided proof to that end (though I admit I have no idea what that would be). And in my opinion, being a little different from the rest of Wikipedia in several aspects is working very nicely at the Teahouse. Can we wait a bit without the conflicting interface and see how it pans out? I am not sure how thinking it works the other way is a problem from an answering standpoint, since checking from the bottom is a smart idea anyway, making sure that the oldest questions have been answered before the new ones. heather walls (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)