Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

Assistance for new editors

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: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)

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.

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)

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)

Withdrawn COI draft needs neutral eyes (2026 FIFA World Cup angle)

Moved to WP:Teahouse

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