Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

How do we set expectations for inexperienced helpers?

Over the last few months (possibly longer?) we have seen a few relatively inexperienced editors enthusiastically jumping into answering questions. These new helpers themselves may have only been registered for a few weeks and may not even be extended confirmed. They try to answer many questions but their answers are often incomplete, misleading, or downright contradict our PAGs. There's often also some basic difficulty in writing coherent English to the point where it can be difficult to extract any meaning from the answer. I eventually go to one of these users' talk pages to find that others have already raised these issues, and are often met with defensiveness or hostility; sometimes these users end up being blocked for CIR or other reasons.

I don't want to bite newcomers, but these newcomers who don't know what they don't know can cost the rest of us a lot of time correcting their answers as well as cleaning up their other issues. Can we perhaps set some guidelines that might prevent new editors from getting in over their head? I'm wary of setting rigid minimum thresholds for account age or edit count, but am wondering if there's a gentle way to say something like, "If you have been here less than X months or have made fewer than Y edits, you may not have enough experience to help other new editors yet." ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start has a few such expectations, if that's similar to what you had in mind? Maybe we could make those suggestions more visible to inexperienced editors in some way. Perfect4th (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfect4th: Oh, I remember signing that form way back when! It seems that the "host" procedure has become a lot less formal these days and we're not saying someone has to be a capital-H Host to answer questions – but those are a good set of baseline expectations. I do think we might need to be more direct about the need to communicate in clear English, as that seems to be an issue for some of our newer helpers. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

ClaudineChionh, I think that's a good request to make of helpers. I'd be interested to hear Nick Moyes' thoughts on this as well as I know he's been active before in the backrooms of the Teahouse. Were you envisioning codifying best practice into that page and asking helpers to abide by that, or putting it on a separate page, or just bringing those up in individual talk page conversations? Perfect4th (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Perfect4th Thanks for the 'ping'. Apologies to both of you: I'm afraid real life has intervened for me in recent months (but in a positive way), so I've not been very active or seen the types (or indeed number) of recent problem Teahouse responses being alluded to above.

In previous discussions about how we accept qualified Hosts (with a capital H), I think I've always said that I'm happy to quietly remove any user who has signed themselves up via the Host landing page, yet clearly doesn't show competence or politeness when answering questions. I usually try to go back through the newly-added Hosts list and send each of them a retrospective welcome message, which includes the reminder that we may remove inactive hosts. That is basically to let us clear out people who have signed up per WP:HAT, yet have never actually contributed anything here! I'm afraid I've not done that clearout for some time, but will try to do so over the next few months when I'm free again.

Obviously, very poor answers from one new user serve only to confuse other new users. If it's a WP:CIR issue, then we can have a gentle word, or eventually even block a user from editing the Teahouse page if their answers continue to cause real issues for others. But we should remember that most new users will be trying to contribute in a positive manner and to help others - and that's a good thing for the health of this Project. With its informal, self-signup approach, The Teahouse can serve as a 'way in' for many users to the 'backroom' side of editing Wikipedia, and we should really welcome and encourage that. Many relatively inexperienced hosts have gone on to great things here, and I would not want to put them off by acting too harshly or too swiftly right at the start of their 'Wikipedia adventure'.

Personally, I think the Host Expectations list is quite reasonable - maybe even a little too harsh in stating they need to have been here for 30 daya and have 500 mainspace edits. That only went in a few years back precisely because of a similar issue of one or two enthusiastic youngsters who were keen to help out, but were unfortunaetly causing more problems than they were resolving. It simply give us a little more leeway to remove Hosts from the list who were not experienced enough at that time. But we don't stop anyone from answering a Teahouse question if they are able to do so constructively. Indeed, that was how I started here ages ago, when Cullen thanked me for something I'd explained and encouraged me to help out more.

I'm sure we'd all be happy to consider specific suggestions for a wording or design change to the sign-up process if anyone would care to come up with a proposal. But retaining the informality and self-censoring approach is, I believe, very important. All other issues with non-Hosts ought to be dealable with on an individual basis. If a new user responds rudely to someone who politely asks them to step back for one reason or another, it tends to indicate to me they aren't quite cut out for the politeness required of Teahouse Hosts. If all else fails, alerting one of our Hosts who are also Admins to these issue could be one way of dealing with any such problems.

I hope this rambling reply is of some use to this discussion, and thanks to @ClaudineChionh for raising the matter. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the background. Now I vaguely remember that when I first returned to Wikipedia in 2020/2021 and discovered the Teahouse, I did fill in the Host questionnaire and was added to the list, and must have been taken off at some point during my more recent extended wikibreak. When I returned again last year I just dove back in to (carefully) answering questions without thinking too much about the Host list. And I suspect many new helpers are also skipping that process.

I'm in favour of what seems to have become a de facto understanding that Anyone can help at the Teahouse, but like Anyone can edit, this isn't entirely true. In my mind I'd like to see the Teahouse as one way that promising new-ish editors can start to get some experience in Wikipedia's "backrooms" or discussion pages. I could probably think of at least half a dozen whom I first noticed here just over the last year and who have become valuable contributors in AfC, NPP, or anti-vandalism work. However, what I've been seeing in the current Dunning–Kruger outbreak seems to be new editors being helped at the Teahouse and, after a short period, thinking they have enough experience to help others. I don't know why this often escalates to outright hostility and abuse when experienced editors raise these issues on their user talk pages. Do you (or other long-term hosts) recall seeing this hostility in earlier years or is it a new phenomenon?

I think what I'm grasping for is a twofold solution to: 1) very new editors being led astray by incorrect answers from relatively new helpers, and 2) gentle guidance on answering questions (and maybe on honest self-assessment) so that these new helpers don't get themselves into avoidable trouble. Unfortunately I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who's been editing for two weeks and decides that they know enough to help other newbies. Would other Hosts/old-timers see value in formalising the Host application and listing process? Or sidestepping that, and adding a bit of guidance on answering questions to the banner at the top of the Teahouse?

Pinging Cullen328 – no obligation to answer as I know you have a lot going on, just flagging this discussion as you've often been the admin I've seen dealing with these enthusiastic new helpers. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, ClaudineChionh. I do not consider the formal sign up process for Teahouse hosts to be all that important. But I place a very high priority on a reasonable level of accuracy in answers and language proficiency. We all make mistakes but some "hosts" make egregious mistakes and write poor quality confusing and ambiguous English prose in their answers over and over, and then seem to resent more experienced editors pointing out the problems. I will warn these people and block them if necessary. In my view, it is unacceptable to have people pretending expertise that they do not have, or guessing at answers. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh You would need to link me to a few new user talk pages or other links for me to see the type of recent issues you mean. As stated above, for the last 12 months I have had very little time free for Wikipedia, so can't really comment on past versus present issues, or their comparative frequency.

I agree with Cullen328 that we don't want people to mislead others with useless responses at the Teahouse. In the spirit of being encouraging and supportive, gentle, polite requests not to attempt to help out if they're clearly inexperienced should be the first response. Then perhaps a sterner 'talking to' might be needed, then a block from editing Teahouse pages if they can't behave in an acceptable manner. In the past I've not felt there was a widespread issue that needed addressing; just a few overly enthusiastic and occasionally rude individuals that were easily dealt with. I'm sorry if I cannot address any recent changes in behaviour from inexperienced users attempting to help out. But feel free to ping me if you ever want to respond and highlight the type of examples you have been seeing. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Declined vs rejected at AfC

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 83#Declined vs rejected at AfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Top / Bottom arrows overlapping links

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Top / Bottom arrows overlapping links. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § "Add a link" experiment and next steps

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § "Add a link" experiment and next steps. Sdkb-WMF (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Unanswered question

User:Hypercyclone 2's question hasn't been answered in 2 days --TheOneAndOnlyInkpen (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the question but I've posted an initial response. Thanks for flagging this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Featured hosts listing removal

Courtesy ping: Jtmorgan

hi! this is to notify that i have formally retired from hosting for the meantime due to abysmal teahouse activity. as i was one of the hosts listed on Featured Hosts, i have decided to also remove myself from the listing at /24, replaced by Cullen for now as a placeholder.

happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 18:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your service, Melecie. Great as he is, we probably shouldn't have Cullen328 listed twice. We could either move everyone after 24 up a place, or perhaps Pigsonthewing, who seems to have been particularly active responding to queries of late, would be interested in being added there? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't make me blush, Cordless Larry. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; yes. What do you need from me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If you sign up as a host via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start, I'll add you to the list of featured hosts. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder to add yourself to the list of hosts if you want to be added to the featured list, Andy. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. It had slipped my mind; thanks for the reminder. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now updated the featured hosts listing and we're back to just the one Cullen328. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Archive header is wrong

For the archives of Wikipedia talk:Teahouse it says "This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. But it should say Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Good spot — I see that issue in the {{aan}} header at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 27. Notified Template talk:Archive. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think what happened was I was trying to go back to the main talk page (this one, until the question is archived) and it wasn't the right one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Copied my reply from the template's talk page, "@Sdkb & Vchimpanzee, in the issue raised above, it would be fairly straightforward to change the text to "This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse." but it would be more complicated to get "This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse." There was a change done in the past to link from talk page archive banners to the article page. This works pretty well for articles, but quirks have come up outside of article space. I believe Andy came up with the idea, so I'll ping him for his thoughts, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)" 09:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The proposed change can now be previewed with {{archive/sandbox}}. The prepositions are handled by Module:Archive/config. The change I described above was made in this edit to Module:Archive and discussed here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Archiving

Are resolved questions getting immediately archived now? If so what's the thinking behind that? Mightn't it be helpful to mark a question as resolved but leave it up to get archived naturally, so that editors have a chance to ruminate on the the responses? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

(a month and a half later) Linking tangential discussion at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 27#Manually archived. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to resolution at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Bot archiving is superior to human archiving, because it explains where in the archives to look. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Question for Wikipedia:

Can we actually ask questions here? As in a request for a new site? I never have time. Yes, I am saying this at 3 am... Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aidenwhelanmorrissey: Here you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. If it is about a new website unrelated to Wikipedia, then not here. WP:RD is for more general questions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Ill-formatted question

At the top of the page someone added the text "Why is there no Wikipedia page for Jacob Barnett in English?" Does anyone know who added this? I was going to reformat it as an actual topic so that person could get their question answered, but I looked through the page history and can't find who added it. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 16:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Signed, titled, and moved to § Why doesn't this page exist. Thanks for spotting it. Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse

What's up with this page? Why is it sooo long, and isn't it supposed to auto-archive after 3 days? I am seeing some 6 day old posts. Is it a bot problem? --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 01:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This page is configured to archive sections older than two weeks if there are more than 14 sections present. At the moment, there aren't enough sections meeting that criteria to trigger the bot. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § WMF seeking feedback on Reference Check

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § WMF seeking feedback on Reference Check. Sdkb-WMF ^talk 18:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly problems when historians are not aloud based on religion as sources but a book written in 1980 in used as a source for historical facts as far back as BC or 1000 ad for example I see this all the time. 2001:56B:3C60:1EE7:19F7:E40E:BB75:C705 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If the Teahouse didn't exist, where would we request it?

Not on this page, obviously, because this talk page wouldn't exist either.

It must have been discussed when the Teahouse first began.

Someone wanted to do this on Greek Wikipedia, so I was curious where this person might have gone there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Not a direct answer: the earliest Signpost mention I could find was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-05/News and notes#Teahouse project. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd imagine nowadays it would be proposed on a central noticeboard like the Village Pump Idea Lab, or the closest that could be found. Obviously I wasn't around then, but it looks like the Teahouse was born out of ideas that came out of an old project called Esperanza and some WMF research that began by focusing on the editor gender gap. Interesting stuff (or maybe only to me, I don't know). Perfect4th (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think as a Wikipedia grows it will naturally form the newbie help infrastructure it requires. From my hazy recollection...

First there was Wikipedia:Bootcamp. It also had an IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp; live chat can be an excellent way to communicate with a newcomer. At some stage that became #wikipedia-en-help. Jimbo Wales popped in the help channel one day and asked why is it so hard for (maybe theoretically) for his partner to ask for help on Wikipedia and someone created {{helpme}} for talk page assistance.

Bootcamp became WP:New contributors' help page. Esperanza was around during all of this but I don't recall it having a newcomer focus.

The Teahouse became a thing, and now there is Mentorship as part of the Growth Team features.

I am not sure what phase Greek Wikipedia is up to. Someone can be bold there, but don't be surprised if things evolve. Traffic will dictate help infrastructure for individual projects. I imagine a singular Help desk is more than enough for smaller Wikipedias. Commander Keane (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but I just noticed this thread. @Commander Keane: Wow, I'd forgotten about the Boot CampWikipedia:Boot Camp! (And I've provided a better link to it). It dates to February 2005 while the new contributors' help page dates to November 2003, pre-dating even the modern help desk, which goes back to March 2004, before the village pump (which was sometimes a venue for new user questions; see links to old welcome messages below) was split up in September 2004. The first version of {{welcome}} (which is itself interesting) dates to July 2004, there was a new user log (created in February 2004), and the Welcoming committee dates to December 2003. But before that, there was a page that was later subsumed into the Welcoming committee: the standard user greeting (which was first created in the Wikipedia namespace in May 2003, but as it's first edit summary says, is derived from work by Mav who was a prolific welcomer even in early 2002. Pre-dating all this is the page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomersWikipedia:Welcome, newcomers; not all its history survives, but I've imported relevant edits there from the August 2001 database dump and can therefore show that it dates to March 2001. I also uncovered this talk page exchange from that month. Graham87 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts

Hey, some time ago I posted a message about deploying temporary accounts here on English WP. The rollout is scheduled for October 7th, and right after it you may be getting questions. Just to be clear, temporary accounts are what will replace* IP addresses as user identifiers (*this is a simplification, and I "well actually" myself and others reminding that well, there are important differences). Anyhoo, precisely because of these differences, people may be expressing confusion all over the place, incl. Teahouse. So, you're most welcome to chime in on VPWMF. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Scheduled rollout is now October 23rd November 4th. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Introducing the Revise Tone Structured Task

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Introducing the Revise Tone Structured Task. Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 21:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive(?) archiving of The Teahouse by @Pigsonthewing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

@Pigsonthewing suggested I bring this to this Talk Page after a discussion at his userpage here.

Several editors (myself included) have found that Andy's manual OneClickArchiving of Teahouse threads disruptive to the flow of The Teahouse. My reasons as follows:

1. Discourages additional answers that would expand upon the thread (especially annoying when in the middle of writing a reply, and suddenly the thread is gone!).
2. Confuses newbies through abrupt archiving which makes threads hard to find and could be mistaken for deletion (which is not very friendly or supportive).
3. Reduces reference value as answered or partially answered threads can be referred to by readers (I learnt Wikipedia guideline and policy by lurking at the various help boards and reading through answered questions).
4. Gives an impression that Andy gatekeeps archiving / owns the The Teahouse and/or threads (as he is the only person who uses this tool on The Teahouse).
5. Is inconsistent with most other boards, where archive bots archive based on thread staleness.
6. Fills up my watchlist with large negative byte changes.

This was brought up in September by @Polygnotus for similar reasons, but Andy refused to budge.

My suggested compromise is that Andy should:

• only manually archive threads he has participated in.
• only archive when the question has been fundamentally answered and no further replies are likely.
• wait at least 24 hours after the last reply before manually archiving.

This keeps manual archiving available for clearly wrapped-up threads.

I'd like Andy to voluntarily stop manually archiving and agree to the above conditions, if there is community consensus he does so. qcne (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If I dig deep in the archives I possibly still have the script that I used to determine the amount of time elapsed between their manual archiving and the most recent comment. It was less than a minute in some cases iirc. They refused to explain why they thought manual archiving was a good idea when the bot will do it automatically. The Teahouse is supposed to be a welcoming place for new users, not a place where your questions instantly disappear into a black hole because some grumpy guy decided it did not meet his unknowable (and probably arbitrary) criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of manually archiving... Well-used noticeboards can become quite long, and thus take longer to load on slower Internet connections. Some people just don't want to do all that scrolling. Clerking noticeboards manually like this makes sense in a lot of cases, especially for boards like WP:COIN. But you do it to be helpful, and if the regulars of a noticeboard don't think it's helpful, well it shouldn't be done. Surely we don't need to have guidelines for Teahouse conduct or something to resolve this. I wouldn't have used the term "disruptive" myself, but overall I'm not sure why this is escalating the way it is. MediaKyle (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a pattern where Pigsonthewing is not swayed when the consensus is against them. A very admirable trait, but it can be annoying in a collaborative environment. Historically, what has worked with Pigsonthewing is topic bans and editing restrictions. That sucks, but discussions haven't led to the desired result. Polygnotus (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that some questions disappear quite shortly after they've been first answered. It is frustrating because (a) questions asked and answer(s) given can sometimes be informative to me and possibly other users; and (b) it assumes that users only wish to contribute to a discussion, or digest it more fully, at the immediate time they first come across it, which (in my case, at least) is untrue. 24 hours should be a minimum; 48 would be nicer.

(Like @MediaKyle, I wouldn't describe this as "disruptive"; more "frustrating" or even "rather annoying".) Bazza 7 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If a newbie asks a question like "How do I make a link", "Can someone fix this reference error" or "Where can I read about Foo", in answered, and then comes back and says something like "That was just what I needed, thank you", it seems perfectly reasonable to me, and i would suggest it would to most people, to archive the discussion as resolved. Why does it not, to you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm with @Bazza 7 and @MediaKyle on this. All that is needed is a best practice which all participants adhere to 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Where is that "your question at the Teahouse has been archived" template? All I can find is Template:Teahouse talkback. Polygnotus (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The template is User:KiranBOT/Teahouse archival notification. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame that my suggestion to determine consensus about when and how the page should be archived, generally, has resulted in a non-neutrally worded post that so badly fails to assume good faith, repeats a baseless smear about "ownership" that I already objected to on my talk page (and adds another about "gatekeeping" to it at the same time), and misrepresents me.

As I said on my talk page, several of the six numbered points are false, and/or without foundation.

I note also that there were no objections when I used this page, in April this year, to propose removing the block on manually archiving this page (and which is not used on most other noticeboards).

I still maintain that, if there are concerns, the correct approach is to determine consensus about how this page should be archived (my requests to links to such consensus, if it already exists, having proved fruitless), rather than to attack an individual who has acted in good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing We are all assuming your good faith. But when you keep doing something after a bunch of people tell you that they don't want you to do that, and instead of having a normal conversation where you explain your reasoning you post messages such as the above, people feel forced to address it.

I can't speak for qcne but I am a trillion percent sure they would rather have a normal conversation where you explain why you do the manual archiving, and then stop it because you see the consensus is against you. Polygnotus (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"We are all assuming your good faith"—That is clearly not the case.

"a trillion percent sure they would rather have a normal conversation where you explain why you do the manual archiving"—Funny, then, that they a started with a post telling me not to archive the page, rather than asking that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing That is clearly not the case. If we all thought you were a bad faith evil person you would be blocked right now.

You already know that the consensus is against you. But you seem to think you can just ignore that fact. So of course people will tell you: "this is the consensus, follow it". But they would prefer a much gentler and nicer approach. Polygnotus (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"my requests to links to such consensus, if it already exists, having proved fruitless" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Here ya go: User_talk:Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Disruptive(?)_archiving_of_The_Teahouse_by_@Pigsonthewing. Asking for links to places you are well aware of is uncommon. Polygnotus (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I am very sorry that you interpret this post, and my post on your Talk Page, as a personal attack. That is not my intention. I have been told by another editor I could have gentler language. Communication and tone is hard to interpret over text.

I hope this thread will determine the correct approach to archiving The Teahouse. qcne (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Then I suggest that (and would take it as sign of retuning to good faith if) you hat this thread and start again by asking that question, in neutral terms and without personalising the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing But I did, remember? User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_221#Archiving And since the nice kind gentle question with please and thanks approach didn't work, people show up to tell you to stop doing it. Polygnotus (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that was not the question to which I refer.

In any case, your question did work; I answered you, giving examples of why I consider threads ready for archiving.

You seemed to be upset at the time because I archived a thread (which you then restored) where you told someone to go see a doctor, per per WP:NOTFORUM. I through that a better response to your comment than reporting it at WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The desired effect was that you stopped manually archiving threads on the Teahouse. You didn't stop doing that, despite me pointing out why it is a bad idea.

I predicted the future: if you continue it may be necessary to prohibit you from doing that. But I am asking nicely first, and I hope that that is enough. Polygnotus (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not tied to any particular conditions, but I have also found this frustrating. I feel newcomers especially are more likely to need a thread up longer to see it, and reading older threads (resolved ones) helped me as a newbie as well, because I could see answers to many common questions without having to ask them. Of course we don't want the Teahouse to be too long, and conversations like this one are not likely to be very helpful to newcomers, but in thinking about it, my ideal archiving time would be about 2-3 days... which is what the bot is already supposed to do (with the added bonus that such edits are hidden from editors like me who don't want simple archiving/bot edits filling their watchlists). I really don't think it does much harm to leave threads up for that time (beyond maybe this stuff, whose archiving was probably beneficial). Pigsonthewing, would you be willing to just hold off on the manual archiving of normal conversations on the Teahouse? Perfect4th (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have found the manual archiving to be irritating on many occasions with questions disappearing quite abruptly and would prefer the more leisurely regime of Bot archiving. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur that Pigsonthewing's approach is disruptive, but what is worse is their continued claims to be the victim of incivility and bad faith when appraoched in a civil and good faith manner about the issue. Such continued aspersions without evidence or standing constitute personal attacks in their own right and are unbecoming of a clerk called to the mat... I do not think that this is a wider issue which requires any real changes, nothing here appears broken except Pigsonthewing's approach to editing and conflict resolution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot archiving is superior to human archiving, because it explains where in the archives to look

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Continued from Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Disruptive(?)_archiving_of_The_Teahouse_by_@Pigsonthewing above

User:KiranBOT uses User:KiranBOT/Teahouse archival notification to explain to users where to find their archived question. That is a much better user experience than having your question disappear into the void. Polygnotus (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the bot is the standard here for a reason. Manual archiving should only be done in exigent circumstances. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Support bot only archiving of The Teahouse with manual archiving strongly discouraged. qcne (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that.

What about cases of the type highlighted in this comment by User:Perfect4th? Or the threads frequently hatted as duplicates of those on other noticeboards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

We can just leave them be archived naturally. qcne (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If someone is just posting a bunch of swearwords/threats/gibberish/gore it can be deleted without archiving. Deleting WP:BANREVERT stuff can be a good idea (it depends). Anything else can be archived by the bot. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned them as archivals I don't consider to be as big an issue, but I do agree that there's no issue with letting them get bot-archived either. Anything truly egregious should be reverted anyway. Perfect4th (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus?

Username	Quote
Polygnotus	Hi! Can we slow down stop the manual archiving on the Teahouse please?
Qcne	Stop manually archiving threads on The Teahouse
MediaKyle	But you do it to be helpful, and if the regulars of a noticeboard don't think it's helpful, well it shouldn't be done.
Bazza 7	It is frustrating because (a) questions asked and answer(s) given can sometimes be informative to me and possibly other users; and (b) it assumes that users only wish to contribute to a discussion, or digest it more fully, at the immediate time they first come across it, which (in my case, at least) is untrue.
Timtrent	I'm with @Bazza 7 and @MediaKyle on this.
Perfect4th	my ideal archiving time would be about 2-3 days... which is what the bot is already supposed to do
Theroadislong	I have found the manual archiving to be irritating on many occasions
Horse Eye's Back	I concur that Pigsonthewing's approach is disruptive
Mike Turnbull	Bot archiving only, please! I could expand on why anything else is disruptive Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
ClaudineChionh	I support delegating Teahouse archiving to the bot
DVRTed	I truly don't understand the rush to archive threads.
ScottishFinnishRadish	Please accept that if other editors are displeased with your clerking you should probably not do it, especially when it gets automatically done anyway

@Pigsonthewing: Is this enough consensus for you? When do we reach the tipping point? 100 vs 1? Polygnotus (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I have commented on any of the related discussions but will do so now in the hopes that it helps demonstrate consensus. I support delegating Teahouse archiving to the bot (with the usual exceptions, e.g. blatant vandalism, personal attacks, and copyvio) so that discussions stay up for a reasonable time and the bot can deliver those archived-discussion messages to the discussion-starters. I also want to remind Andy that Teahouse discussions can be helpful for all newcomers, not just those who have participated in the discussion; that we are an international community distributed across many timezones; and that some editors don't even visit Wikipedia every day (I know this may come as a shock to some 😉). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Who are these people who don't even visit Wikipedia every day and how can we best punish them? This is completely unacceptable. Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly 72-hour archiving is too quick. What would be better? 6 months? A year? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Andy, I am disappointed in this reply. I hatted my original thread in good faith after you asked me to, to defer to this thread to build consensus, but this reply is obviously not in good faith and isn't constructive.

The other high traffic boards have bot archiving around five or seven days, I suggest we try that. qcne (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I truly don't understand the rush to archive threads. Just because the OP replied with something along the lines of "Thanks, that helped," doesn't mean the thread needs to be immediately archived. As somebody said above, the thread can still be helpful to uninvolved new users and allows the OP to quickly ask follow-up questions on the same topic, even if their original query has been resolved. I originally did not intend to comment on your archiving habits specifically, but... "Clearly 72-hour archiving is too quick": This is sarcastic, right? It's funny you'd say that because you so clearly don't take into account the timing of OP's last comment when archiving. In your last few hundred manual archives, the highlights include the record times of 2 minutes 9 seconds and 2 minutes 22 seconds; these happen typically immediately after a "Thank you" from the OP. — DVRTed (Talk) 11:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Can you please please confirm that you will stop manually archiving noticeboards, now that the consensus is 11 v 1?

We are all hoping we'd be able to avoid having to create yet another editing restriction. Because we all believe you are a good-faith user.

But the consensus is now 11 v 1 and you are still making a sarcastic comment instead of saying: "Oops, I was trying to do the right thing, but if everyone else asks me to stop then I will". So please please confirm that so we can all move on and do something more fun. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about on your talk page when I said that in regards to civility and good faith you demand the benefit of the doubt of others while refusing to extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone besides yourself[1]. You expect us to believe that this comment is civil and in good faith but that the much less sarcastic and derogatory comments made towards you aren't civil and in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I prefer longer discussions instead of short ones that end abruptly. I think most people feel the same and would choose discussions with multiple replies over those that stop after just one. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Just let it archive on its own, not manually Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111 Thanks. They stopped so I should probably close this section. Polygnotus (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn COI draft needs neutral eyes (2026 FIFA World Cup angle)

Moved to WP:Teahouse

 – Sdkb ^talk 19:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

COI question about draft biography (actor)

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § COI question about draft biography (actor)

 – qcne (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow.

I'm just surprised how much goes into making people get good and reliable answers.

Even in the Teahouse, where quick answers are expected, sources are still found in replies. Xboxfan38 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The more detail given in an answer, the less likely they'll return to ask for clarification of that question later on. :) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m amazed at this, surprisingly. These answers are well-detailed of course. ~2025-42676-23 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Removing myself from lists

My activity here has fallen off lately, so I would like to be removed the the list of Teahouse hosts and the list of Teahouse featured hosts. Maproom (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom I think you can do that by editing Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts directly to remove your entry. I'm not sure about "featured hosts". Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured has the featured rotation. Sdkb ^talk 04:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Quick nit: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing is the actual page that lists the current hosts. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Questioners who may use automatic translation

Lately I have noticed a lot of pointed comments directed toward questioners at the WP:Teahouse about their use of automatic translation, especially LLMs, in forming their questions here. Some are bite-y, with no attempt to deal with their actual question, and are purely a challenge on how they created it. Imho, that is not the purpose of the Teahouse, which is to help users, especially new users, by answering their questions. The first thing they hear from someone here should be helpful and welcoming in tone, and not be a challenge. They are new, *of course* they are going to make mistakes. I see no problem with gently mentioning a transgression of some sort while focusing mainly on their question. If the mistake is serious enough, their User talk page is the right venue to address it. But we should focus on helping users here, not challenging them.

As far as how to deal with a user using automatic translation, there is no policy or guideline about comments on Talk pages about LLM use that I am aware of. WP:LLMCOMM is part of an essay, and has no force in mainspace, let alone on Help or Talk pages. As far as how (and whether) to approach the issue several distinctions need to be kept in mind in order to gauge how to respond to someone whose post doesn't appear to be 100% their own, original English:

• namespace: at the Teahouse, obviously we are not dealing with article space, so guidelines about articles are irrelevant here.
• Generative LLM v. cleanup: asking an LLM to create their comment for them, v. writing the comment entirely on their own in broken English and asking AI to clean it up: the latter is no problem.
• LLM v. statistical translation: if they write a question in their native language and have it translated automatically, probably we should prefer statistical or neural approaches (Google, DeepL, Yandex, etc.) over LLM translation (ChatGPT, Gemini etc.), but I don't currently see a problem with any of them.

Bottom line: there are a huge number of English as second language editors who are active and productive at Wikipedia, and hopefully we can welcome a whole lot more. Let's make sure we don't drive them away in some of their first interactions with Wikipedians, by welcoming all questioners and addressing their questions first. We should tread very gently and constructively with criticism, and avoid mentioning translation at all except when there is a serious issue involved, which is rarely the case. That's my view. What's yours? Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Using llms to clean up text can be a problem, as when changing text it often introduces new meanings which may not be intended. It is important to keep that in mind when replying, and is a reason why clarity on llm use is helpful. That is a bit different to translation, as any translation can introduce unintended meanings. I don't know to what extent llm translations differ from others in that regard. CMD (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@CMD, I am trying to document specific cases of MT/LLM failure; especially egregious cases where it completely reverses the meaning, and not just subjective evaluations like, this one is better, that one is stilted, etc. If you have some, please forward them to me. I need: date, engine name and version, source text, translated text, and any remarks or comments. I agree with the distinction between llm and standard MT translation. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out, but that amount of data probably means relying on generating things myself to see. CMD (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you--if they are using it in mainspace, that's more of a problem, but if they're here to ask an unrelated question, then we should focus on the question. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Was this section written with the help of AI? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Lol! Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If I may be extremely uncharitable: does this not seem part of the broader and admittedly perennial problem of "answerers at the Teahouse who know enough to dangerous"? Every host has to start somewhere, but: I find some [initial] answers, while perhaps literally sound, fail to grasp at potential nuances of the question. An experienced and diplomatic host asks clarifying questions before leaping to quote the first result of their "WP:"-prefixed query.

I think a similar thing is happening here, where instead of having the awareness that perhaps not everyone knows that even grammar-check AI hallucinates and that Gemini is now integrated with Google Translate, they jump straight to WP:AITALK and forget to read it in conjunction with our civility policies.

Returning to the original topic: since we have some kind of agreement here, I can link this section when pulling aside these users on their talk and warning them to stay on topic and to not go for newbies' throats for using a broken tool sold to them as useful. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the featured hosts on the top right of the header and mark them as historical?

I'm starting to think that it would probably be better to just get rid of the featured hosts and mark the pages related to it as historical. I have just replaced a lot of the inactive Teahouse hosts with active ones, but rather than maintain the list since I could see a lot of our editors that are currently active at the Teahouse likely to go inactive at some point (whether it's to stop editing or edit other parts of Wikipedia). What do you think of the idea of getting rid of this and just have the Teahouse host sign up process with no rotating hosts? Interstellarity (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Interstellarity How much time did you spend deciding who was an active Teahouse host? Just from a glance, and I see you've added at least one person[2] who afaict has never answered a question here, only asked them.[3]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian I was on this page here and looked at the editors with the most edits to the Teahouse. I have to admit that I did not check to see if they have answered questions at the TH. If you can think of other editors that would be better for the featured hosts (assuming it is kept, that would be great). Interstellarity (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think the rotating hosts thing is a nice addition to the banner when the people on it are face-out and have something personable to say in the caption. Cullen and Nick, for example. I don't think it's a problem to have a short featured host list, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As a very passive reader of the Teahouse discussions: people on it are face-out – yeah, the IRL photos "work", but abstract avatars of hosts always looked out of place and confusing to me. If the web UI of the on-wiki discussions looked like a phpBB forum with avatars at every message, then the avatars in the featured hosts would have been justified. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As someone User:Interstellarity added yesterday and informed me about it on my Talk Page, I'll repeat what I said in reply, which is that I had deliberately not added myself to the host list as I didn't want to feel any obligation to contribute regularly here. Nevertheless, following his prompting I was happy to be press ganged. Now I discover that someone has decided to remove the featured host banner today. While I haven't looked to see who that was, this was clearly too bold while this discussion is still in progress, given how long the old version of the banner has been in place. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what exactly the use of it is. Also, bit unrelated, but I don't think I've ever seen myself in the rotation, though I've seen the same person(s) dozens of times. jolielover♥talk 10:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Several years ago, when I first saw the feature that's being discussed, I wondered whether it was useful.

The other day, when I found out my name was on it, I thought "Well, this is one day when we know for sure it isn't useful". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think teahouse hosts as a concept ought to be considered deprecated anyway. People answer what they can answer, there's no need to 'be a host' to do that. Athanelar (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed jolielover♥talk 12:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, basically for the reasons @Augnablik describes below. -- asilvering (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Although I’m coming a little late to this discussion, it seems to me that there are actually two discussions going on here: one about whether hosting itself should be deprecated, the other about whether just designating featured hosts should end. Speaking as something of a fairly recent graduate from newbiehood, I would certainly hope hosting itself remains — probably featured hosts too, if the basic existence of the host list can become better known.

By interesting coincidence, I made a related post in the Teahouse just today — completely unaware of the discussion here (in fact, I didn't know the Teahouse even had a Talk page). The post was about what a great idea I thought the host list to be, after stopping to look at it for the first time today. After countless forays to the Teahouse and having always received quick help from the hosts and others, somehow I'd never done that. I found myself wishing that I had.

— Seeing an "official" list helps create a feeling of something of a continuity we can count on for guidance rather than just hoping for the best from other editors who may not be much further along than ourselves and occasionally decide to pitch in at the Teahouse.

— Seeing captions and, if possible, also photos may seem trivial. Yet they can go a long way to "humanizing" the Wikipedia experience for not just green newbies but also even editors further along. And humanization of the workplace, especially a distant spread-out one, is just the sort of thing the corporate world has come to realize as important in staff retention.

Because the host list included many editors I didn't recall seeing before in the Teahouse, and there were also some names I'd have expected to be on the list but weren't, I raised the question in my comment today about how often the list got updated. In reply, Mike T called my attention to the discussion about hosts going on here, so that's how I've arrived.

I hope these thoughts help carry the conversation forward rather than muddy the water, as there are many things to consider in the larger picture. Augnablik (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

When I contributed the above message to this discussion 5 days ago, I was looking forward to see where the conversation would go. Did I shut it down instead, as there've been no further replies ...? Augnablik (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

(pinged to this discusison by Mike Turnbull). I'm somewhat in support of the "Featured hosts" feature in general, but opposed to it in its most recent form. If new readers think it helps provide a friendly face or person-ness that makes them feel more welcome, then that's enough of a reason to keep it. But if the avatars are distracting, or wind up looking too informal/cheesy due to what some hosts choose, that is something that should be resolved. And how the rotation is decided definitely needs to be fixed if we're getting featured-hosts who are not active, not aware, or otherwise not interested in being highlighted. This discussion seems mainly about the featured-hosts not about hosts in general, and earlier commenters do not seem to have been addressing that wider idea, so I think we should avoid straying from the originally framed topic here, and can have new topic to discuss that wider idea. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see the featured host return to the header because I always thought it added a friendly touch, though I agree that the list of hosts probably needs monitoring and updating more regularly. It would be nice if there was a bot that could remove inactive hosts automatically, wouldn't it? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry I'm very sorry - I have not been active on Wikipedia this year, but I do hope to return someday soon. Over the last maybe 7 to 10 years I have tried (but not always succeeded) to maintain a healthy list of self-signed up Hosts by welcoming each one of them, whilst at the same time removing the tiny handful of those who clearly have never significantly contributed anything, and who have probably just been WP:HATCOLLECTING.

I also tried to maintain the list of 'Featured Hosts' because I agreed with others editors that it gave a sort of 'personal feel' which put some of the names of the most active hosts into the header and helped new users feel supported by names they may have already seen. This made the Teahouse so much more friendly and less anodyne than all the other help fora here, and goes right back to the early days of trying to present a 'friendly face' to new editors.

Self-signing up to being a Host is a really great way to get new editors to appreciate that they have the skills and abilities to begin getting involved in the running of Wikipedia. And for those really active Hosts, it makes sense that their names are seen and recognised by visitors here.

I accept that my recent extended period of inactivity here gives me very little voice to express my opinions on this matter, but I do feel it a really great shame that someone has taken it upon themselves to remove the Featured Host element of the Teahouse, though I accept that my own username should have been removed because of my own recent prolonged period of inactivity.

Be advised that I may well not be able to reply quickly to any follow-up to this posting. Regards to all, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Nick, what great news that you may return “someday soon.” When I was at my greenest as a newbie, I appreciated your messages in the Teahouse so much for the warm support they always conveyed along with clear guidance … even though I knew nothing about you from Featured Hosts.

I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only Wikipedian to say that, if there were a poll, as well as question why — with all your experience in making contributions as a Teahouse host — you should feel your long absence from the scene should give you “very little voice to express your opinions on this matter” of keeping Featured Hosts. Augnablik (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Ideally, we shouldn't be reliant on a single person's efforts for things to keep running, but I hope you're back soon, Nick Moyes. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD and the uncertain state of consensus on this topic, I've restored the banner pending conclusion of this discussion. For transparency: I did trim the number of hosts from 31 to 29 a couple of days ago, removing the transclusions of the /30 and /31 subpages to remove me and Maproom. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I find ideas for new articles? - add examples from established users?

Hi all,

I notice that there are often Teahouse questions along the lines of, "how do I find ideas for new articles?"

Well, one Saturday in July 2017 I was bicycling into work to drop off clothes for the upcoming week, and as I passed through Edinburgh Gardens in Fitzroy North, I noticed a group of people all dressed in red. Initially I thought it might be something to do with a recent TV series but then I noticed all the people were dancing along to a Kate Bush song. I was intrigued. When I got back home, I googled up (Edinburgh Gardens) + (Kate Bush) and found out. And after checking that there was significant coverage in reliable references independent of the subject, started on The Most Wuthering Heights Day Ever. That's how I got the idea for that article - I literally passed by it on my bike.

• Ethel Scull 36 Times: I watched a YouTube video about The Factory where Andy Warhol's first commissioned work was mentioned.
• The Essex Serpent: in 2018, I saw a book in a bookshop and [remembered it from something I had heard on the radio a year before

What do you think about this?

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a zone of topics that are significant enough to be notable but not so significant as to very likely have an article already. I'd guess that finding a topic in that zone may be one of the hardest parts of identifying a suitable new article. It takes a while just seeing which topics do or don't have articles to develop a sense of that zone, although perhaps that's something one can develop just by being a reader. Sdkb ^talk 18:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

"Help:FRIENDLY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Help:FRIENDLY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 3 § Help:FRIENDLY until a consensus is reached. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we get some archiving?

The teahouse is at 200 open topics which is way too many. The top of the page says things are archived after 2 or three days but there's stuff there from November. Doesn't matter if it's a bot or a person doing it, it need some cleanup. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking this earlier - is the archive bot broken? qcne (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it with Special:Diff/1327169789, though I won't know till the bot runs once more in 12 hours or so. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

With Special:Diff/1327303673, it seems to be back to normal. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If the bot archiving is back to normal, that's good. I do like the bot auto-archiving, because I read the Teahouse threads once or twice a week, and I learn new stuff all the time. David10244 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@David10244 Me too, I know. ~2026-10951-8 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this tea place actually to come talk and share suggestions

hi where is the tea forum to talk to wiki people?? It looks like just a heavily controlled area with absolute pre defined fixed threads

Why have the option to create a topic 🤔 ~2026-18041-6 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse (WP:TEAHOUSE) is where new or inexperienced users can ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia. It isn't for general chat. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-18041-6 For general chat (or off-topic talk) use Wikipedia:Discord or Wikipedia:IRC, that's where the general chat happens. --SimmeD (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggested change to the Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation template

Teahouse hosts might or might not know that when a user has their first article declined at Articles for Creation, reviewers have the option to invite them to the Teahouse via the Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation template.

We have had quite a few discussions in the past on the AfC project talk page about new users getting routed to the Teahouse when they should probably be routed to the AfC Help Desk instead. Part of the reason is perhaps that the Teahouse Invitation template is a bit generic.

As part of a wider project in re-writing the AfC templates, I've had a go at re-writing the Teahouse Invitation template: User:Qcne/AfC_template_rewrites#Teahouse invite

The re-write specifically routes newbies to the Teahouse if they have questions regarding editing, sourcing, or policies; and the AfC Help Desk if they have questions about their draft in particular.

Feel free to drop any feedback.

If anyone has any feedback on the rest of the AfC Template rewrites, see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Overhaul of the AfC templates. qcne (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect answers

We seem to have an increasing number of new editors, giving incorrect answers. Are we being trolled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Examples? jolielover♥talk 13:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't wish to single out individuals, because of the risk of false positives; there are several examples currently on the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I have seen that too (incorrect answers) and was mullying over how to deal with this. Lectonar (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it to be trolling, more overconfidence on the part of inexperienced editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

We have a number of socks recently blocked for asking silly or redundant questions; these seem to coincide with the increase in incorrect answers; hence my concern.

Clearly, some of the issue is due to well-meaning novices, who gradually improve. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably have clarified that I mean that I hadn't considered it to be any form of co-ordinated campaign of trolling. It's possible that individuals are trolling us though. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Nick Moyes who's previously said to me that he's interested in these periodic patterns of over-confident new helpers. I haven't read every discussion in the last week so I don't know if it's worse than some of the ones I identified last year. It may just be that there are more newbies with lots of time on their hands at this time of year? (Remember that holiday periods vary significantly across different countries.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't pick up on the incorrect answers but I have noticed people answering in ways that seem rude or at the very least curt rather than assuming good faith. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that at least some of them are using a chatbot to answer questions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as a good answer and the same editor is attempting to answer other questions too. Should we politely ask them to stop until they have more experience? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Just wanted to note that Theroadislong left a note at their talk page advising on what you've said. Jolly1253 (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, @Nick Moyes: I also have noticed this, on the Help desk too. Some contributors seem to consider it an opportunity to add their opinion or comment, rather than answer a call for assistance, or just stay quiet. I've ignored it until today when a flippant remark by a frequent contributor crossed the line from unamusing to misleading. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We all do that from time to time, but your response was perfect. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt - especially when they make their firsts attempts at answering questions at the Teahouse. It can lead to good things. Just as you did, the best way is to politely challenge why they've attempted to answer a question when their answer is clearly not helpful. It's the habit of continually posting poor answers that needs to be addressed. This can be done by any editor, but there should usually be enough admins around if it's gets out of hand to take the matter further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

WMF Successful Newcomers Survey results

Teahouse hosts/helpers may be interested in the results of the m:Research:Successful Newcomers Survey 2025, which surveyed new editors who had registered in the previous six months and made at least 25 edits. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

26% of newcomers turning to generative AI for their editing questions is hugely concerning. I wonder if we're not making our newcomer resources accessible enough, or if people are already just so used to defaulting to "ask ChatGPT" that there's nothing we can do about it. Athanelar (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

My guess is the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

A few points that might interest Teahouse hosts:

• A quarter of successful "new" accounts are people with old accounts (e.g., lost password or WP:CLEANSTART). A quarter of successful new accounts made their first edit as an IP or WP:TA.
  • Result: Half of "new" accounts aren't entirely new.
• A fifth of successful new editors created their account just to read Wikipedia, and later started editing. Three-quarters of new editors read Wikipedia a lot.
  • This means that most of them will know what's typical/conventional for a Wikipedia article (e.g., infoboxes, little blue clicky numbers, occasional maintenance tags...).
• A third of successful new editors wanted to fix a typo or other error.
• 30% of successful new editors created their account for the purpose of creating a new article. (If memory serves, this is up from 25% years ago.)
• Half of successful new editors have never used Special:Watchlist. This is a key tool for most experienced editors. Perhaps we should advertise it more/better? This could be done automatically through the Echo/Notifications system ("Congratulations on making your 25th edit! You might be interested in tracking edits to articles through the watchlist tool.")

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Obvious signs that [a] page is AI-generated ... or not

I'm no lover of "AI", but am increasingly alarmed by the way in which people are being accused of using it.

Aesurias writes about a draft:

Obvious signs that the page is AI-generated are:

a. the overcapitalization in section headers (e.g. "Media and Public Speaking" rather than "Media and public speaking")

b. vague claims like "Her entrepreneurial insights on leveraging analog missions for business opportunities in the Western Balkans were published in Forbes."

c. ChatGPT's "list of three" habit, where it will use three reasons as an explanation for something (e.g. "...began through volunteering (1), analog missions (2), and her 'ultimate pursuit of truth' (3).

d. some parts of the page use the standard short dash (e.g. "(2024-2027)", while others use an en dash (e.g. "(2023–2030)"). this inconsistency indicates the use of a large language model for large sections of the page while small parts were handwritten

e. some of your sources have been hallucinated by AI and do not exist. for example, reference 4

Comments:

• a. "Title case" is very commonly used in English text for subheaders. (And of course LLMs ape this.)
• b. This is soporific, semantically vapid, bullshit-rich corporatese. Prose like this long predated the popularization of "AI". (Of course LLMs ape it too.)
• c. For better or worse, the kind of thing that's encouraged in English writing courses.
• d. For "standard short dash", read "hyphen". Yup, inconsistency could mean that. Or it could mean a half-hearted attempt to change hyphens-that-should-be-dashes into dashes. (Such conversion is boring; I myself have dozed off while doing it.) Or a non-standard notion of the difference between contexts for hyphens and contexts for dashes.
• e. The source indeed doesn't exist (and I too strongly suspect that AI is the culprit).

There's no need to bring AI into it. Articles shouldn't consist of corporate bullshit, even if concocted by a human. Cited sources should exist and should say what reference placement implies that they say, regardless of who/what is responsible for failures. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Wikipedia will be unable to stem the tidal wave of AI use and should not attempt to do so. We already have advice at WP:FOC, which says Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. Comment on the content, not the contributor of that content. I would add "even if they used a LLM". Together with the standard advice which Teahouse hosts should know, summed up in don't bite the newcomers there should be little need to mention AI specifically when replying in this forum. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of #Questioners who may use automatic translation above, except this time with drafts instead of automatic translation. If we're having the same conversation twice in a month, I would suggest some kind of concrete steps for addressing this...if I were actually experienced in dealing with user behavioral issues and drafting [even informal] guidelines. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've just realized that I didn't ping Aesurias. I should have done so. (Sorry, Aesurias!) But NB this isn't a complaint about Aesurias. Rather, Aesurias happened to write the latest example I'd encountered of a kind of diagnosis/demand that's surely well-intentioned but that strikes me as less than convincing or necessary. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with what I said. None of the points (except E) would ever stand up on their own, but when it's all there together, the circumstantial evidence becomes pretty strong.

The editor in question asked for advice regarding their draft, and I gave it. The likelihood of it being accepted when full of AI-generated content is lower than if it were handwritten and neutral.

Notes

aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It's less your answer specifically and more the pattern of bite-y answers from multiple respondents that involve accusations of LLM use. That's why my reply to Hoary points to the above discussion from the end of December, which further explains why this broad category of answers don't help and don't follow the spirit of the Teahouse. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a valid point. I rarely answer in the Teahouse and so my mind is mostly set on reviewer mode. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

When I was new to Wikipedia, I did not follow sentence case and capitalised every letter other than minor words like 'and' in subheadings. Just pointing out that so many people take one sign as an affirmative, or assume AI-checkers are accurate (they are AI themselves lol) and then throw out accusations. jolielover♥talk 06:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved Jolielover's reply down from between Aesurias' comment and their signature. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with this and I think it dismisses the difficult work that draft reviewers do. If I saw only one of those signs I wouldn't think too much of it, but in this case it's clear that AI was used. After reading hundreds of drafts submitted for review it becomes very easy to tell which terms & phrases are repeated by LLMs. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check. Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 07:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia

I recently read an article where it is stated that between 80 and 90 percent of all Wikipedia editors are male. It is also stated that edits made by women are far more liklely to be deleted or reverted. I think it is time to change this and we need to find way to reduce the gender bias and we also need to empower women to edit Wikipedia. It is the year 2026 and it is important to fight for equality. ~2026-12585-95 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

We've been doing this for the better part of a decade already. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thats good. But I am worried about my own language version. I live in Iceland and I can see that males dominate the Icelandic Wikipedia. Every single active admins on Icelandic Wikipedia are male and most editors are males. This needs to be fixed. ~2026-12585-95 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That is something that needs to be dealt with on that Wikipedia, then. Each Wikipedia (and WMF project) is its own community with its own set of standards and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking for help

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § Asking for help

 – HurricaneZeta^C 21:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

New editor looking for advice

Hello everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia and just started learning how editing works. I'm interested in topics related to the United States and technology. I would really appreciate any advice on how beginners can contribute properly. Thank you! Carlos .R. Diego (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Carlos .R. Diego, and welcome to Wikipedia! I just left a welcome message on your talk page with several helpful links to cover the basics. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

ChronicleBooks885

Hi folks, please be aware of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ChronicleBooks885. I just reverted a pile of their inane questions. They're really easy to spot (especially if you have TAIV) and just here to waste your time, energy, and good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't aware about this sock. I was suspicious but I try to always assume good faith. jolielover♥talk 12:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Can we add the Teahouse and the Help Desk to the /43 pblock? That'll stop them for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I might consider it if they keep coming back from this /43, but this isn't their usual spot (that one's blocked already) and I really don't want to block a wide range from the Teahouse if I can avoid it. -- asilvering (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Darnit, I responded to two of their questions. Even after reading the Long-term abuse page on them! I'll keep that in mind, even though I prefer to assume good faith. I think we should have a general policy not to answer general questions (what is wikipedia? How do I edit? etc.) from IP editors even if we don't think it's a CB885 sock to prevent this from happening. That way, we still assume good faith, but have a nice fence. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that policy would be a good idea - plenty of good-faith editors make similar questions. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi asilvering.

Could this possibly be them? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say Unrelated, but it's still best to hat/close that discussion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Nah, definitely not, and not just for the technical reasons CWL has already looked at. -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

ArthurPlummer posts

ArthurPlummer, an account created about a month ago, has recently been fairly active at the Teahouse answering questions. The account, however, was blocked a little while ago by Izno. There's not much that can be done about posts that have already been archived, but maybe a decision should be made on what to do with posts made to still active threads. The posts are a violation of WP:EVADE and could, in principle, be removed per WP:BRV and WP:TPG#sockvote, but that might create gaps in a discussion that makes things hard to understand. So, maybe it would be better to strikethrough the posts instead and leave a clarification as to why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think striking the replies is appropriate, and there's even a guideline for this at WP:SOCKSTRIKE. I can make a start on this now; I feel a little obliged to do so as I was their mentor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Big blue button in Template:Talk page of help

The big blue button "Get help at the Teahouse" in Template:Talk page of help points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Would it be helpful if instead it pointed to {{fullurl:Wikipedia:Teahouse|action=edit&section=new&dtenable=1}}, just like the button "Ask a question" at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header? —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Would probably be fine. Is there anything in the header significant enough to make it worth adding in the extra step? Doesn't seem like it from a glance, especially since there's also the editnotice. Sdkb ^talk 18:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Implemented in Special:Diff/1339060618. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse name style change

Just logging some history here. As pointed out in a main thread, the TA @~2026-79950-2 added some style to the Teahouse title to have some color. I think it looks nice. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It was a bit jarring when I first saw it but it's grown on me over the course of the day. I say we keep it. MediaKyle (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 HurricaneZeta^C 20:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems harmless. I do think we should try to avoid making the user interface of the Teahouse too distinct from other places, since then editors won't learn how to interact normally. But I don't think that really applies here. Sdkb ^talk 21:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Just as a note: the TA said they are Xzkdeng and vice versa. MetalBreaksAndBends then updated this project talk page's title to match. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It's still pretty jarring for me; I'm not completely on board with it yet but it seems harmless. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it should remain; in terms of Wikipedia's presentation style it's not entirely harmless. Why was it done? It adds nothing yet signifies that, of all the site's pages (apart from the Main page), this is a "special" page without indicating in what way. I know which page this and what it's for is because it has a large title at the top and a helpful "Welcome to the Teahouse!" box underneath. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a razor's edge between harmless and jarring. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It is some simple coloring surrounding a title. I don't understand how it could be jarring, and I know the Teahouse won't explode because its name is green. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It's still really inconsistent. If any stylistic changes should be made it is the removing of the "Wikipedia:" before Teahouse (see how I did it on my user page). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby: In what way do you think your change improves Wikipedia? Bazza 7 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I like looking at it. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly forum to ask questions, isn't it? Well, the color change certainly makes this place look less depressing than the usual text. I don't know how this could possibly hurt anyone or anything.

_{Also, I didn't make the change.} toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the main jarring part is the colon. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Closing discussions as out of scope

Occasionally, while I am around the Teahouse, I see some people closing discussions as "out of scope" if they are completely unrelated, such as "I fell out of a tree". How often is this done and should it be done? I'm relatively new as a host, and I want to learn more about how to do better here. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 20:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCavers, our goal is to improve the encyclopedia. So if a post seems like someone is trying to improve Wikipedia, I'll generally deem it worth replying to to help them out, no matter how off course they may be. But if not, for the "I fell out of a tree" CIR-type situations, it's just not worth our effort. Sdkb ^talk 18:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

My main question is how I close these. Is there just a template I can slap on or something, or is more needed? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 00:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Different templates can be used, but they're used as a set; {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}} and {{Archive top}}/{{Archive bottom}} are some that I've seen used. FWIW, you probably don't need to worry about doing this type of thing in most cases since TH threads are regularly archived and don't remain on the main page for too long if left unanswered. In fact the risk of overdoing something this, particularly if your a new host and your intentions are the best, could actually blowback on you. There are several administrators who reqularly answer questions at the TH and usually one of them will take care of the really bad stuff. Of course, any thing that's a clear violation of things like WP:NPA, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO or even WP:OUTING can be removed asap without needing to use a template to do so. If you do such a thing, though, you probably should follow up with an administrator so that they can cleanup what's left to cleanup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! You are right though, I likely should avoid closing too much. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think people are confused by the fact it's called a "Teahouse" and use it to just have random discussion as they would in a physical teahouse (though occasionally, people do ask for tea which in reply we give them tea emojis). While I like the name and the sentiment, it might be time to start reconsidering how to avoid confusion like this. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed a blocked editor from the featured list.

I have removed a user who was blocked as a sockmaster a month after being added to the Teahouse featured host rotation. User:Phoenix. Please revert if this was in error. I don't want to add anyone to the rotation to replace that editor without discussion.

Edit: Well to quote @Chaotic Enby (who saw my message just after I made the change, unfortunately): "That won't work, as the code in the header looks for a random subpage between 1 and 29, so even if you remove a user from the list at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured, they can still show up in the header." Exactly that happened on manual confirmation, so I am not sure what ought to be done now, but I do not think this user should be featured. The question then arises as to who should be featured in their place? Pietrus1 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like I was (accidentally?) removed from the host list at some point, so I've swapped in myself to the slot. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Phew. All has worked out. Pietrus1 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to include my COI.

I am the subject of this article and have prepared this draft to document my public work and civic leadership. I understand that this represents a conflict of interest and request that independent editors review the article for neutrality, sourcing, and notability before publication. D M Moore Bailey (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

D M Moore Bailey This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, and is not the Teahouse itself, please post to the main Teahouse page with any questions. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Which editor?

We often have to ask people which editor they are using, which can be confusing for them and long-winded for us to explain.

I have made Wikipedia:Which editor? to which we can refer such people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good start. I think you should add a comment that you can switch editors using the icon on the right to go from VE -> SE or SE -> VE when you have started in one to edit an article but need temporarily to go to the other. Newbies to the Teahouse will also be confused by the fact that "Add topic" either here or on other talk pages starts in SE but if one tries to switch to VE using the link provided doesn't actually go into conventional visual mode! The "Reply" tool is also odd in that it has an editing window and a preview window active together. I'm aware that this might rapidly become TLDR. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Lack of archiving?

Does anyone know why some topics that have been here for longer than 72h haven't been archived, e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse#Subst template in signatures? Lowercase sigmabot still seems to be archiving ([4]), but it isn't archiving all the ones that have gone past the time limit. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Σ, as it doesn't seem to have fixed itself and there are quite a few topics that have been sitting despite being old enough for an archive. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The archiving bot appears to be working fine. It's not about how old a topic is, rather how old the most recent comment in a particular section is. Graham87 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

At the time, some of the most recent comments were over a week old without the section being archived. In the diff I gave, there are sections were the most recent comment was 9 days from when there was last a comment, and the bot didn't archive them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see now. Yeah that's odd. Graham87 (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Add teahouse links to level 1 templates?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Add teahouse links to level 1 templates?. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Created a draft

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Created a draft Tmamedzadeh (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

More than 20 days of nomination for deletion on wikipedia commons. Still it exists

why so? Akashsharma000 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to ask about issues regarding Commons on Commons. Like here, it is a volunteer effort, things only get done when people are able and willing to do them. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Could I become a host?

I've been contributing at the Teahouse as a non-host for a while. I think I meet all the requirements at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_start, except for "account older than 30 days with more than 500 mainspace edits". I do have more than 500 edits, but not more than 500 edits in mainspace. I tend to be more of a behind-the-scenes editor, contributing more at XfD and sometimes chiming in on AnI threads or community discussions.

If it's a question of experience, before making an account I had lurked Wikipedia's discussion forums for several years, and I've been fascinated with wikis in general for nearly half my life. I have college level proficiency in technical writing, and I am the daughter of two professors in communication studies. And I know a lot about being nice to people online! All these being things I think contribute to my experience level in a way that edit count doesn't reveal.

Still, I don't satisfy the requirement of 500 mainspace edits. Could I still become a host? MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 19:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah why the hell not. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hehe

I've gone ahead and added myself as a host, but if anyone objects feel free to revert the addition. Could I perhaps be added to the rotation of hosts displayed in the Teahouse header, too? MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 09:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Why does my username appear on the Host landing but not on the list of hosts?

Is the list of hosts just the featured host rotation? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK The system is confusing owing to its history. There is a partial explanation at WP:Teahouse/Host/Featured that tries to explain the difference between WP:Teahouse/Hosts and WP:Teahouse/Host landing. You will need to decide what you want the end result to be before you make any changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull You will need to decide what you want the end result to be before you make any changes. What does that mean? Changes to what? Can I add myself to the list of hosts but not the featured host rotation? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The rubric at Host/Featured says Please do not attempt to add yourself unilaterally to this feature; discuss changes at WT:TH first, please. Currently you are in the odd position of not being on the list a newbie would see if they clicked the "View Hosts" link at the top of the Teahouse page, nor are you among the 29 hosts who rotate randomly through the Teahouse header banner. The only place you are listed is at WP:Teahouse/Host landing, which I assume is because you signed up to become a host. Hence your "decision" is whether to ask to be added to one or both of the other two lists or just ignore the fact that almost no-one will ever learn you signed up. By the way, I didn't sign up, despite now being on the rotation: someone else decided I was a "regular" and added me there! See this discussion. As I said, the system is confusing... Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually confused on this as well. I checked the source code of the page, and it looks like WP:Teahouse/Hosts is meant to transclude WP:Teahouse/Host landing, but for some reason it cuts off after Commandant Quacks-a-lot. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 18:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed it! It was but a humble misplaced <noinclude> tag. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 18:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Replacing user as featured host

Hi all,

I noticed that the host at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/21, Anatole-berthe (talk · contribs), has not posted at the Teahouse since June of last year. Their talk page also indicates that they do not intend to be active as a host at the Teahouse anymore.

As a replacement, I've put myself in as the featured host in slot 21. If anyone objects to this, feel free to replace me with a different active host. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/HostBot Invitation on mobile website

In mobile website (skin Minerva Neue), there are two issues in Wikipedia:Teahouse/HostBot Invitation: 1) the Teahouse logo is tiny (an issue that plagued many *mboxes some time ago); and 2) the text is very narrow due to wide left and right margins (4em on either side). These issues also apply to User:KiranBOT/Teahouse archival notification, which has the same layout.

I tried some stuff at Wikipedia:Teahouse/HostBot Invitation/sandbox, which is a bit more readable on mobile – the Teahouse logo is visible, and it doesn't squish the text. Someone better versed in CSS could probably come up with something that doesn't also ruin its look on the desktop.

CSS like @media (min-width: 720px) (example from Module:Message_box/tmbox.css#L-84--L-70) could probably be used to make it look better on different screen sizes, but I don't know if there is a good way of doing it in a substituted template (i.e. without TemplateStyles). See also Wikipedia:Teahouse/HostBot Invitation/testcases. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There are definitely some accessibility issues related to Teahouse materials. Please feel free to boldly make changes! Sdkb ^talk 18:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Who is able to close a discussion?

I responded to a query and two editors, including the OP, referred me to WP policies. Meadowlark Nebulous2357,

However, neither of them pinged me allowing me to comment and, shortly afterwards, the OP, who I'm pretty sure isn't a host, closed the discussion, which now prevents me from responding.

Are they (ie the OP) able to close the discussion? As a host, can I reopen it? Thanks Mme Maigret (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that you would be allowed to re-open it, as the discussion was not resolved. Please see: Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions and Wikipedia:Closing discussions. (Note that neither of them are a policy, only best practices for closing discussions). BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

To clarify further, I believe that anyone is allowed to close a discussion, but what you are describing does not sound like it should have been closed. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"Ask a question" button

It looks like there's no border radius around the "Ask a question" button anymore. There weren't any edits that seem to have caused this, so not sure what happened or whether it's also happening for others or how to fix it. Sdkb ^talk 20:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Banned user is featured host

Hey y'all. I saw a host, User:Iljhgtn, and was curious, so I clicked on their photo. Apparently, their account was banned for being a sockpuppet(the sockmaster is also banned). I've gone ahead and removed them from the featured host list, and based on what I've seen, I think that should remove them from the rotation.

To keep tradition with the last time a host was removed, I've replaced them with User:Cullen328 as a placeholder.

Best, PolarClimates (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be good to set up the featured host system so that we can have an arbitrary number, rather than having a system where we need to maintain a constant number (leading to the need for placeholders like this). Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe we were already over this not too long ago, but the more I think about it the less fond I am of the featured hosts system. Most of the images used are a bit jarring... The AI-generated animal is particularly egregious. I think they're nice when people use an actual photo of themselves, but understandably, most editors aren't into that. And this is the second time recently that we've featured a blocked user... See here. Not a great look. -- MediaKyle (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I also find the AI generated animal to be distasteful (I assume you mean Sdkb's image - no offense, Sdkb).

Aside from that, I think it's best if hosts are using either a picture of themselves, or a picture of something that's meant to represent them. It also wouldn't hurt to look through the entire list of featured hosts and update it. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for replacing inactive hosts:

Cullen328 (due to him being a placeholder, there are two of him on the list) -> Nil NZ

David NotMD (he hasn't edited in close to a year) -> Mmemaigret

I would also like to be added (replacing Tenryuu, who hasn't answered a question since June and hasn't edited since December) as I have been answering questions for a few months now, but considering I only recently officially added myself to the list of hosts, I understand if this is unable to be done. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to my duplicate listing being removed. I think that indefinitely blocked editors should be removed from the list immediately by any editor without discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not fluent enough with wiki text and JavaScript to do this, but I wonder if it's possible to write a script that automatically selects featured hosts based on activity In the Teahouse. That would solve the blocked user issue, and for the images, the bot running the script could send a talk page message. PolarClimates (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that we could probably manage the list of featured hosts manually, so long as we had an efficient means by which to do it. I do have some ideas for a rework of the featured host rotation. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, an update system for featured hosts would be better, but, for the time being, what do you guys think of my proposal? Do you guys think any other old featured hosts should be removed? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say be bold and do it. You've given other editors and teahouse hosts ample time to ponder the changes :) PolarClimates (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ @Mmemaigret You guys haven't officially adding your names to the list of hosts. Please add them so I can move it to the list of featured hosts. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond I've done that now. Thanks. Mme Maigret (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I added the both of us. Once Nil NZ makes a profile on the host page, I'll add them. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the prompting, I was probably overdue to add myself 😅 nil ^nz 03:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I added you to the featured host list. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to remove me from the list. I've been busy with other life things and have reduced my time on Wikipedia to almost nothing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Featured host system rework proposal

I mentioned above that I have some ideas for how to update the featured host rotation. I'd like to share my vision here:

Instead of using the random subpage template, we make a custom template for the featured host rotation. The template would display a random host from a list written into the template itself. The list wouldn't have a fixed size.

The hosts displayed are still transcluded from subpages, but the subpages are named after the hosts rather than being numbered. For example, my featured host page would be located at /Host/Featured/MEN KISSING or at /Host/Featured/MenK, rather than at /Host/Featured/21. Those subpage names would be what the template uses for transclusion, so the list in the template would be easy to read and thus easy to change.

Under this system, I think it would be a lot easier for the list of featured hosts to accurately represent the hosts who are currently actively participating at the Teahouse:

• Putting a host in the rotation would no longer require finding an inactive host in the rotation to replace, since the list wouldn't have a fixed size.
• Removing a host from the rotation would no longer require finding a suitable host to replace them, since the list wouldn't have a fixed size.
• Removing a host from the rotation would leave their subpage intact, so it'd be very easy to add them back later. This means hosts could be delisted if they go on wikibreak, and be relisted afterwards with no hassle.
• In cases like Iljhgtn's, we could delist them immediately and WP:PROD their subpage if necessary (or leave it alone, per WP:DENY).

I'll probably mess around making a prototype for it in my sandbox. I think it'd actually be very easy to implement with just templates, and it wouldn't be hard to write some Lua for it either. I could also come up with some advice on what the protocol would be for maintaining the host rotation. Let me know what y'all think! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, not having a fixed size would be a direct improvement. Sdkb ^talk 04:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't support this. Firstly, if there is an unlimited amount of slots, everyone who spends any time at the Teahouse will want to be added to the list. If everyone is on the list, the featured hosts are no longer the most active, distinguished members of the Teahouse, but a randomly selected list of active and inactive members.

As the list of featured hosts gets longer and longer, we will also have to maintain it. The need to maintain the list, removing inactive members, will lead to the same exact discussions we are currently having. We will shift from finding replacements to sorting a long list of inactive reviewers. Also, the need to replace hosts is rare occurrence and finding inactive hosts isn't hard. The swap doesn't take much time, making automating it useless.

The subpage is just a copy of their Teahouse host section, which will always to readily available, and only requires a copy-paste to turn into a featured host subpage. The template is already preserved in a separate location, so there isn't a need to preserve it in a second place. The featured host system, while requiring an update around once per year, is perfectly fine. Changing it would be an unnecessary hassle that would make the system as a whole worse. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a basic process/requirements for requesting one be added to the host list, so that not everyone will pile onto the list? And maybe create a definition of inactive (e.g. has not edited at the Teahouse for X time) to make it so that we don't have to discuss every removal? Sdkb ^talk 20:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of this proposal to save time? It takes much more time to have editors review requests and monitor for inactive hosts than to have 1 discussion per year. Do we really want to pull editors from more important tasks to review requests to join a mostly symbolic list? Simplicity is best; we shouldn't overly complicate the featured host list. The more complex we make it, the more time it takes to maintain it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there to be a requests system. Editors should add themselves to the list if they meet some criteria, and they can be removed by other active Teahouse hosts who have it on their watchlist if they didn't actually meet those criteria.

I'd like to point out, picking a random host from a list to display is a lot easier and simpler than I thought it would be. And it would be compatible with our current system; we could just list the existing featured host subpages that end in numbers.

There can be an upper limit to the number of featured hosts. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 00:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, we run into the problem of over complication to solve a non-problem. The root cause of this proposal--attempting to eliminate the host replacement system--, is a non-problem. I took me around 5 minutes to replace 3 hosts; it isn't that hard to do. Under the new system, it will take much more time. First an editor has to figure out how to create a subpage, rather than use one of the readily available ones. Next, another editor has to independently verify that they meet the criteria, and revert the person who added themselves if they don't meet the criteria. After that, people have to go through the list every so often to check that everyone on it meets the activity criteria. That takes much longer than replacing 1 or 2 people every year when someone wants to be added to the list. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe the main issue with the system isn't time. It's the issue of finding replacements for other users, which requires permission from another member. The problem isn't when someone wants to be added; its when someone needs to be removed. PolarClimates (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Finding replacements isn't a problem. There are always users--like Men Kissing, Sdkb, and myself--that want to be added to the Teahouse to be recognized for their efforts and placeholders. Blocked users being on the list are an extremely rare occurrence that has only happened twice to my knowledge. Considering all of the users on the list are already well-established users, it is unlikely to happen ever again. Even if it does happen, we can use placeholders until another user inevitably wants to be added to the list to be recognized for their efforts. With inactive users, we don't need to immediately replace them. We can leave inactive users on the list until another user wants to take their place. Either way, we already have solutions for all of the problems that this proposal solves; no need to overcomplicate the process. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

New convenience template for Autobiography requests

When people ask to write an autobiography, I generated {{THAUTO}} based on similar {{THYFA}}. Would welcome your feedback and responsible editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice work, this seems like it could be really helpful for common Teahouse questions. I like that it gives a clear explanation without sounding too harsh. The overall idea looks solid to me. Ferdous 09:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Russian vandal

Is there something we can do about the user who keeps vandalizing the Teahouse with their various disturbing questions in Russian with different TAs? Block the IP range, or semi-protect the Teahouse? They've made at least 9 of these edits since 21:54, 4 May 2026. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 15:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Make that ten. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

another, was dealt with by someone else. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hopped to Another temp... Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

We should avoid semi-protecting the teahouse if we can; I'll see what blocks I can make. CoconutOctopus talk 16:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

They're jumping around proxies, but they're not that active and it's easy enough to revert so I think WP:DENY and blocking when they do pop up is best for now. If they do pick up the pace then try WP:RFPP CoconutOctopus talk 16:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say to ignore them, rollback their edits if possible, and don't really interact. We should definitely avoid protecting the teahouse if possible. BSH (talk) - (she/her) 16:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protecting the Teahouse should be the last option. Blocking the accounts/IPs when needed seems like the best approach for now. Ferdous 08:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we just edit filter this? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 13:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147 I know very little about edit filters. Is that a viable option here? Who is able to do that? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m just throwing things at the wall, but I feel like an edit filter against random Russian at the tea house might be ok. It might be something needed if this continues, (also edit filter mangagers can edit filters and create them.) Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 19:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't like the optics of that personally. We do occasionally get genuine questions in other languages, and that's OK. Just ignore and revdel until they go away. Talking about it more is probably a bad idea, reading this might serve as encouragement for them. MediaKyle (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It may just be a troll but their posts(translated) suggest they are trying to avoid being conscripted and/or going to Ukraine. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are actually two Russian vandals, off-and-on. The first one I saw is the one you're describing. The other one is much more... Creative. I stopped translating them now. MediaKyle (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Headings on Hosts page

Does anyone know why the bottom three entries on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts have visible (level 2?) headings while the earlier ones don't? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That page transcludes the list of hosts from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing. The headings are all wrapped in noinclude tags, except for the latest ones. They aren't added in automatically via the "become a host" button; they were probably last added manually by me, when I fixed an issue causing the list of hosts to not properly transclude due to a misplaced noinclude tag. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, no, it was one "Pyrrhic victor" who fixed that up last. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no clue why the noinclude tag isn't automatically included from the button, but it's easy enough to manually fix. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The button takes you to the "add new section" page for /Host landing with Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host preload already loaded as default text. The section header text comes from the "subject" field of the add new section page, so it's impossible to get any text above it.

I suppose it would be possible if the preload body text had a /noinclude tag at the top and a noinclude tag at the bottom, plus, a /noinclude placed at the very bottom of /Host landing such that new sections somehow are added above it, to close off the hanging noinclude from the most recently added host.

You would also need some way of having the noinclude tags of the /Host preload page included in the loaded text. Which is a problem, because they are designed not to do that. I'm sure there's a way to get around that, though (and if anyone knows what it is, that'd be swell!)

I'm sure there's someone out there who would know how to do all of this in less than a minute, but any more effort than that is too much effort. Manually updating the page is fine for now. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, one of the few times the if it aint broke don't fix it philosophy works. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we not use AI-generated images in the "featured hosts" area?

Not only does it look cheap, but it contradicts the general consensus against AI that Wikipedia has. A new person coming to this forum may have the impression that generative AI is okay to use on the project. There's also the fact that it does not look professional or welcoming in any capacity. I'm not raving to meet @Sdkb:'s lemur with a macbook on the Teahouse, I'd hope to just be greeted by him. jolielover♥talk 09:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. That should have been removed a long time ago. MediaKyle (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover, I use they/them pronouns on Wikipedia. I'd like for newcomers to be able to meet actual me, but like most Wikipedians, I am pseudonymous, thus the use of a whimsical avatar that doesn't depict any actual info about me.

I'd hope we'd have a bit more of a nuanced view here. Particularly, the main problem with AI images is the potential to confuse them with reality. But that concern doesn't apply to an avatar depicting a scene that could never exist in reality. The only thing a reasonable newcomer should infer is that it's acceptable to use an AI avatar on their userpage, which it is.

Yes, many Wikipedians are skeptical of AI, but it is not true that there is a general consensus against AI, nor does my avatar violate any of the existing AI guidance to my knowledge. If there develops a consensus against using it for avatars, I'll change it back to the photograph I used prior (it just wouldn't be my preference because I like the whimsicality of having the lemur be editing Wikipedia). Also, I used AI just because it's a tool that could make an illustration I could not by myself, rather than out of any particular attachment to it, so if anyone wants to hand-craft an illustration of a lemur editing Wikipedia of sufficiently high quality I'd happily switch to using that.

Until then, I'd ask that you respect the deference userspace guidance provides to editors to choose their own avatars, which de facto extends to the use of those avatars in the gallery. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 11:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I was unaware of that, if you have a specific preference, I would recommend attaching that to your profile. The main problem with them is the extensive environmental damage. My consensus statements comes from Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence, which shows that using AI is clearly unpopular and prohibited in many parts/aspects of Wikipedia. I am aware that it is not prohibited for this scenario, I'm just showing that there's already precedence for its unpopularity. Regardless, this doesn't address the way that it looks cheap & shoddy for a host to be using it to depict themselves in a help forum, especially considering the prohibition of AI-generated images in mainspace in most scenarios. It's just incredibly bizarre to see an AI lemur attached to a host's name. You can do whatever on your userpage, but I feel like the images in the Teahouse gallery should have some regulation, because to me, it doesn't feel inviting. I'll be happy to start the campaign to amend the "deference userspace guidance", or just for the Teahouse gallery. jolielover♥talk 12:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Sdkb, this is not the first time this has come up. Your avatar bothers your colleagues. Regardless of the reason, it wouldn't hurt you to change it, and it would look better on you to do it yourself as opposed to waiting until it's removed by consensus. I don't think this is going to go away... I personally feel offended every time I'm forced to look at AI slop. MediaKyle (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Sdkb:

1. You should check Wikimedia Commons' guideline on AI generated images. See Commons:COM:AI: "only media that are realistically useful for an educational purpose should be hosted on Commons. Just because an AI image is interesting, pretty, or looks like a work of art, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily within the scope of Commons."
2. I think you might be missing the point here. The problem with AI generated images is not mainly that there is potential to confuse them with reality. It's a much more complicated issue than that, and I would argue that lots of people just don't like looking at AI generated images very much, due to the negative associations with AI as a whole. You're free to have your own opinions on the matter, but I encourage you to listen to your fellow hosts here.
3. I don't agree that userspace guidance is what rules over the Teahouse featured host rotation.

MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, @MEN KISSING, but Commons is a completely separate project, and I'm a bit confused as to why you're saying their rules actually impact us here? Commons can set whatever scope they like -- but even if the image was out of scope on Commons, SDKB is more than free to upload the file locally. TWe literally have Template:Esoteric file for these sorts of cases; files of little to no Commons-value, but useful here. Again though, not completely sure it's relevant -- that guideline is a bit oversimplified from my recollection of the local discussions, and don't trump commons:COM:SCOPE, from my experience with DRs, which does allow for active editors to have a limited number of personal, non-education files, for use on stuff like their userpage.

And, in terms of offensiveness - @MediaKyle, I'm vegan. I'm personally offended every time I see somebody with a dead animal, or with a boiled and fried. otherwise desecrated corpse of a dead animal. I think people should still be allowed to have, idk, a hotdog as their teahouse host avatar if they like. Ditto with fast fashion - it's personally incredibly offensive to me, but I ain't forcing people to remove their tshirts before they take their host picture. I don't like AI either, but my personal advice is, when it comes to stuff like this - get used to it when it comes to avatars. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware; I mentioned it because the images in question are hosted on Commons. If they were hosted locally, that guideline wouldn't apply. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 03:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like to make an argument that Commons policies dictate that the image should be deleted, then you're welcome to start a DR. At Commons. At which point, it could easily be exported here. Which I'm not sure it would be -- again, Commons is mellow, and, from my experience in DRs, if a file is in use by an active contributor, not spam, and doesn't pose a copyright issue, it's typically going to be kept. That was a point of contentious when F10 was being amended, irrc, because people were worried that people would try and tag images like this one for speedy deletion, when the community doesn't believe, by and large, that these are out of scope. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

And, not to get on you,@MEN KISSING , or anybody else in this discussion -- but your Teahouse host is literally of an animal in the Sunshine Aquarium. Zoos in general aren't always great, animal welfare wise -- zoos in Japan specifically are often really not good. (That's the subject of one of my GAs) Sunshine Aquariums isn't an exception -- it's obvious from the image you've chosen alone that that cage way to small for that anteater. It's in a shopping mall. Speaking with perhaps a bit less tact, because I really don't like animal abuse -- the fact that anybody could be more worried about an AI generated animal than an animal being kept in a tiny enclosure in a shopping mall is... well, let's just say offensive. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

GLL, I fear you've misunderstood my intentions with bringing up that Commons policy. I have absolutely no intention of attempting to get the file deleted there myself. I was just responding to the "... nor does my avatar violate any of the existing AI guidance to my knowledge" part of Sdkb's response, pointing out guidance that might be relevant.

Responding to your second message just now, I... hadn't realized that. You make a good argument that I should change the picture out, and I'll make an effort to find a picture of the same species in a more natural habitat once I have some more spare time. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that Sdkb's lemurs were brought to Commons deletion review in July 2024 and speedy kept. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh! I hadn't seen that. Again, I want to be clear that I was not trying to say "your lemurs must be deleted", I just wanted to bring up some guidance that seems relevant for those files in particular. I'm not familiar enough with Commons' policies to determine for myself if the images were out of scope. Maybe it was silly to bring it up that point at all; I'll strike it. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Would like to note there's a thread by someone complaining about it. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A newer user at that one who seems to be echoing worries earlier in the thread of seeing the picture to be potentially disrupting, offputing, etc. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)