|
||
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Reply link in Archives
Currently reply links show up in archived discussion pages too, where they won't be of any use. Archive page templates like {{aan}} use the magicword __NOEDITSECTION__
to suppress section edit links. It would be nice if reply links can be suppressed this way as well. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ this is being worked on in phab:T249293, feel free to contribute there. — xaosflux Talk 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ are you able to share a link to the archived discussion page(s) where you noticed reply links appearing where they shouldn't be?
- Reason being: I'd like to add links to these pages to the ticket that @Xaosflux mentioned above (T249293). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) you can see an example at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project/Archive 1 — xaosflux Talk 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wonderful – thank you, @Xaosflux. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) you can see an example at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project/Archive 1 — xaosflux Talk 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Related: is it possible to suppress reply links in pages that are not intended for active discussions? For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and similar pages where the content is bot-copied from the real discussion pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Somewhat related: I noticed the reply links show up when viewing past revisions of a talk page and when reviewing talk page diffs. What happens if someone uses it on an old revision or below an old diff? I suppose it's fine unless there are any sort of undesirable consequences, in which case I would recommend suppressing them there as well. DB1729 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the comment you're replying to is still on the page, it will automatically resolve the ensuing "edit conflict". If it's not (e.g., due to archiving), you'll get an error message. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's cool, but on further thought, when viewing an old version of any page, the edit source links for sections disappear. There have been a handful of occasions when viewing an old diff, I would notice something that needs correcting and look for the edit link for the section. Seeing it not there, I would realize I nearly edited an old version and back out. It might be worth considering to similarly disable the reply links to offer that same clue. Just a suggestion. DB1729 (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @DB1729 @Redrose64 There is a nice improvement to the reply tool's behavior on old revisions coming this week (powered by the same code that provides the edit conflict warning I promised here): when you start replying on an old revision, and there are new comments in the same section in future revisions, you'll get a warning about it and a prompt to display them. I hope that will resolve this concern. Matma Rex talk 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's cool, but on further thought, when viewing an old version of any page, the edit source links for sections disappear. There have been a handful of occasions when viewing an old diff, I would notice something that needs correcting and look for the edit link for the section. Seeing it not there, I would realize I nearly edited an old version and back out. It might be worth considering to similarly disable the reply links to offer that same clue. Just a suggestion. DB1729 (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the comment you're replying to is still on the page, it will automatically resolve the ensuing "edit conflict". If it's not (e.g., due to archiving), you'll get an error message. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Reply button on archives
I was browsing some Noticeboard archives and noticed the Reply button was very much present. I haven’t quite checked User talk archives, and I’m not sure what can actually be done about it, but I imagine should anyone jump in on those archived threads they’ll just be reverted.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project#Reply_link_in_Archives above. — xaosflux Talk 13:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Marked unsigned comments
I noticed that the on-page reply feature hasn’t extended to comments that are marked unsigned. Like, I get why they don’t appear for comments that are plainly unsigned, but for what the unsigned template does, it should probably adopt that quality too--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no way for the software to tell the difference between a line that should have been signed ("Can someone help me?") and a line that is intentionally unsigned ("This section is for listing sources that we should use. Don't sign anything in this section, so that the bot won't archive it"). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mean intentionally unsigned, see I was dealing with an IP user on their talkpage and they wouldn’t sign their comments (presumably due to inexperience), so I’d keep having to go to the source to reply (and also put the unsigned template on their comments). By the time I could explicitly tell them to sign their comments, they stopped replying. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- How would you expect the software to identify an intentionally unsigned piece of text on a talk page? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not. I’m hoping that this feature could be extended to the unsigned template. Is that unreasonable? CreecregofLife (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note the reply tool is part of the MediaWiki software and so applies to all MediaWiki installations, whereas templates are specific to what has been created by editors of a specific MediaWiki deployment. (Almost) anything can be handled in software, of course, given enough development time but it means the design and rollout is more complicated, with more potential interactions with other future features, thus affecting their development time and rollout. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not. I’m hoping that this feature could be extended to the unsigned template. Is that unreasonable? CreecregofLife (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- How would you expect the software to identify an intentionally unsigned piece of text on a talk page? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe CreecregofLife may be talking about comments that have been marked with {{unsigned}} or a similar template. Which I would suspect would be painful but feasible. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- How easy or difficult it will be will depend on exactly how the reply determines what is and isn't a signature. Depending what that is, it might be possible (and if it is, probably easier) to modify the unsigned template to output something the reply tool sees as a signature. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It needs a link to any user page (User:, User_talk:, Special:Contributions) plus a valid timestamp. A blank copy of Template:Unsigned, which produces this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) isn't going to work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not working on a filled out/correct unsigned template, then it'd be helpful to have links/diffs. I thought that the [reply] tool worked with most of the unsigned templates at this wiki. Most wikis had to make a few changes to unsigned templates, but I thought that was done here more than a year ago. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well the {{unsigned2}} has just worked when I tested it at user talk:Thryduulf/sandbox. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a diff that shows all the unsigneds on my motivating example getting substed, and you can see what I mean from there CreecregofLife (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are no timestamps in those signatures. You have to have a user plus a timestamp. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not working on a filled out/correct unsigned template, then it'd be helpful to have links/diffs. I thought that the [reply] tool worked with most of the unsigned templates at this wiki. Most wikis had to make a few changes to unsigned templates, but I thought that was done here more than a year ago. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It needs a link to any user page (User:, User_talk:, Special:Contributions) plus a valid timestamp. A blank copy of Template:Unsigned, which produces this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) isn't going to work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- How easy or difficult it will be will depend on exactly how the reply determines what is and isn't a signature. Depending what that is, it might be possible (and if it is, probably easier) to modify the unsigned template to output something the reply tool sees as a signature. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mean intentionally unsigned, see I was dealing with an IP user on their talkpage and they wouldn’t sign their comments (presumably due to inexperience), so I’d keep having to go to the source to reply (and also put the unsigned template on their comments). By the time I could explicitly tell them to sign their comments, they stopped replying. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Easier linking to comments?
One thing that I've already encountered multiple times is wanting to link to someone else's comment using the new URL structure you've introduced. Editors presently tend to use diffs, but your structure is nicer, since it shows readable prose rather than markup and allows one to see subsequent comments. It's quite tedious, though, since it requires carefully copying the username and timestamps in UTC time. Would it be possible to introduce something like a link icon that would appear when you hover over a comment, and that when clicked would copy the link to it so you can paste it elsewhere? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- What new URL structure? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project#c-Redrose64-2022-03-24T22%3A25%3A00.000Z-Sdkb-2022-03-24T22%3A08%3A00.000Z {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a new URL structure, it's the long-established form for an external link (as opposed to a wikilink) to a talk page with the addition of a fragment. The fragment is merely the value of an
id=
attribute somewhere in that talk page. So, you should be able to use your browser's "Inspect element" feature to identify anid=
at the start of the relevant post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a new URL structure, it's the long-established form for an external link (as opposed to a wikilink) to a talk page with the addition of a fragment. The fragment is merely the value of an
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project#c-Redrose64-2022-03-24T22%3A25%3A00.000Z-Sdkb-2022-03-24T22%3A08%3A00.000Z {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- This would be extremely convenient and I support the idea. One reason they may not want to do this just yet is that the precise format for the IDs isn't 100% settled. (No idea if this is actually the case, just speculating.) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb @Enterprisey: Have you tried meta:User:ESanders (WMF)/commentlinks.js? ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't, but that sounds very cool! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, rumor holds that we might get actual permalinks. The kind that won't be broken by archiving. Fingers crossed... Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't, but that sounds very cool! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Finding discussions
Not sure the best place to get in touch with the relevant editing team (ping @Whatamidoing (WMF) and PPelberg (WMF):, but a regular issue seems to be duplicated sections being created for issues already being discussed. Example at Talk:Bucha massacre (permalink) where we have the same issue being discussed in lots of different sections (e.g. many sections effectively about the same concern with the 'Reactions' section, ditto with Russia's involvement in the issue, etc). I imagine part of the issue is that many editors independently see the issue, the talk page is unmaintained and has too many sections so they can't be bothered to read through and find if the issue is already being discussed, so they create a new section. It makes discussion more split and harder to reach a consensus on issues, or figure out which of the many sections you should reply to.
I don't have a solution, but maybe a way to highlight 'key/highly active' ongoing discussions could be one way. Another way could be improved refactoring tools for volunteers to more easily merge sections together. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader, thanks for this. The designer's been thinking about this problem. Take an unofficial peek at this demo to see a starting point. There are several small-to-medium problems that they'd like to address. Some of these are about finding out which discussions need attention/are active now. Others are not so obviously related to this (e.g., look at WT:V's history for all the new editors posting article content on the talk page).
- As for the specific page in question (which I haven't looked at), one way to manage exceptionally large discussions with several "themes" is to have the regular talk page work more like a signpost than a talk page. Imagine that people reaching that page see something like this, instead of the normal talk page:
- and that clicking the relevant button takes you to a separate page (or a specific section) where that subject is discussed. In my experience, so long as you direct people to a page where they believe their concerns are being taken into consideration (e.g., you have to respond to the comments on all pages; also, no fair sending one group to a page called
/Bad ideas
or/Null
), it seems to work. In this instance, you could even EC-protect the regular talk page to discourage "accidental" posts on the wrong page.. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)- That demo is interesting. Colour coding the "last comment" value would be useful, pure date-based comparisons mean somewhat little to me, to be honest, but colour-coding (based on activity within past day / past week) may be more useful.
- I feel like signposting/protecting main talk page is unconventional enough such that it'd be difficult to get consensus to try this on a talk page where it's actually required (there would be a lot of active editors on it, and this would be a big enough change to their workflow s.t. I doubt many people would want to try it). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader – I'm glad you stopped by to share the issue you've been encountering/observing.
- +1 to what @Whatamidoing (WMF) mentioned above: the issue you are describing fits right into the set of challenges we are in the middle of trying to address.
- I also agree with you in thinking that the length of Talk:Bucha_massacre, combined with the lack of an easy way to review all that's been/is being discussed on the page [i], could help to explain why you have been seeing people starting new discussions about a topic that is already being discussed.
- It's with the above in mind that I wonder: would you be open to trying updated version of the prototype [ii] @Whatamidoing (WMF) referenced above that includes a new table of contents? I'm thinking the new table of contents might help with the "there not being an easy way to review all that's been/is being discussed on the page" part of the problem.
- And while I don't think the prototype I've shared a link to above will solve this issue outright, I am curious to learn whether you think it is a step in the right direction.
- ---
- i.
has too many sections so they can't be bothered to read through and find if the issue is already being discussed...
- ii. I've added the contents of the Talk:Bucha massacre to the prototype to make evaluating it through the frame of the issue you came here to share a bit easier. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can see this in old Vector at https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/916be355b2/wiki/Talk:Bucha_Massacre?useskin=vector&tableofcontents=1%7Cthis The Editing team is still discussing whether any of these changes should be visible in MonoBook. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Unexpected heading behavior
I've encountered some unexpected behavior with headings. This situation is that I'm giving out a bunch of identical {{subst:FAR notice}}
messages, and after the first one, I only wanted to have to copy and paste one thing, rather than the header and body separately. So I went into the source code and copied the full section, including the header, and then pasted it into the body on the next user talk page. This worked, but I noticed that it caused me to leave a message without an edit summary [1], which isn't ideal for communication and harms my edit summary usage stats. So for the next talk page, I clicked on the advanced button and entered a summary ("FAR notice") manually. This time, though, without any sort of preview, it added my summary as the header, creating a duplicate header I had to remove [2]. There are a few different paths you could take to resolve this issue, but you should do something so that this unexpected behavior isn't occurring. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a bug. Thanks for reporting it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Reply tool ... no option to indent with asterisks instead of colons?
In the reply tool, is there no way to indent with an asterisk instead of a colon? Long story short ... [this edit was obviously unintentional, but it caused the intention to be one level too many. If there is no option, there should be one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, seems Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project/Archive 2#Reply Tool appears to use wrong list type after bulleted comments references this issue. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's complicated. On the one hand, most people at most wikis prefer
:
for discussions. A few, most notably including a sizable number of editors at the Russian-language Wikipedia, prefer*
as the main formatting code. So the default is:
and it's possible to change that default wiki-wide (but not user-by-user). - But even if you prefer
:
for most discussions, you might:- want to add a voting-style comment (e.g., your diff)
- want to reply to an item in a bulleted or numbered list (e.g., to ask someone a question about their !vote).
- When you want to add a voting-style comment, then you need to change the formatting code, but you also (and more importantly) need to change the indentation. Changing the indentation is the step that would have prevented the
:*
problem in your diff. This will require work, and possibly a way to "code" the page (e.g., by adding a template) to say "Dear DiscussionTools, please note that this is RFC and the normal behavior here is a bulleted list, not a threaded discussion". The Editing team talked about this last year (see phab:T259865), but I don't know if it will get done. A smaller but possibly just as useful idea is to give editors more control over outdenting (see phab:T265750). - For the second case, if the first item is
*
and I want to reply to that, then some editors prefer to use**
and others prefer*:
. The reply tool originally matched (**
or::
but not*:
) but someone said they liked it better the other way, so it now uses:
always. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's complicated. On the one hand, most people at most wikis prefer
As seen in this diff, when the unregistered user replied to my warning, their comment was placed between the warning proper and the shared IP address note supplied by Twinkle.
Is this intended behavior? Something still being worked on? I didn't see anything about it here. Or is it Thursday? I haven't noticed if it was doing this before today or not. --DB1729 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, I feel like that should be how it’s done. Let it behave like a footnote especially as the conversation goes on and doesn’t address it directly CreecregofLife (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That point had occurred to me as well. It just looked odd. I guess because I'm not used to seeing it like that. --DB1729 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it’s a little weird when multiple of that same note are in the same section. I’m not saying it should be programmed to recognize it, but it should be okay to just let the bottom-most instance encompass it all CreecregofLife (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- If comments are always placed at the bottom of a section, they'll be placed at the bottom of the section even when the bottom-most matter is
or {{reflist-talk}}. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- If comments are always placed at the bottom of a section, they'll be placed at the bottom of the section even when the bottom-most matter is
- I think it’s a little weird when multiple of that same note are in the same section. I’m not saying it should be programmed to recognize it, but it should be okay to just let the bottom-most instance encompass it all CreecregofLife (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That point had occurred to me as well. It just looked odd. I guess because I'm not used to seeing it like that. --DB1729 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: New talk page designs
Mockups are ready for the changes designed to make it easier for people to understand and use talk pages on desktop and mobile. We would value hearing what you all think.
Below is the information you will need to review the designs and share feedback about them.
PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewing the designs
- The mockups in the gallery above show how wikitext talk pages, on desktop and mobile, are likely to appear to people who have the Usability Improvement setting enabled.
- Sharing feedback
- Once you have reviewed the designs and you are ready to share what you think of them, please add a new topic to this talk page by doing the following:
- Click the "Add topic" button at the top of this page
- Name this new topic: "Design Feedback: YOUR USERNAME"
- Write your answers to these questions:
- What concerns do these designs bring to your mind?
- What questions do these designs bring to your mind?
- What do you wish was different about the designs?
- ✅ That's it!
- The Editing Team is eager to hear what you think. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a mockup of the desktop that shows multiple sections and more comments at once? Perhaps a scrolled down version of that one? — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- hi @Xaosflux – we don't have a mockup that
that shows multiple sections and more comments at once
; however, there is a prototype ready that I think will enable you to see and use a page like you are describing. - Can you please let me know what you think of the prototype linked below? It's a test wiki, so please feel free to experiment.
- Prototype: patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/916be355b2/wiki
- Note: I recommend creating a new account so that you can see how Topic Subscriptions looks. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- hi @Xaosflux – we don't have a mockup that
- @PPelberg (WMF) Are there any plans for how to handle level 3+ sections on talk pages? A discussion having many level-3 sections is often a key indicator it's a major one, so I'd like the ability to see them easily preserved. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "preserved"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The current table of contents on talk pages shows all the level-3 sections in a way that doesn't require any uncollapsing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- This new Table of Contents is part of Vector 2022, and the only thing Editing is doing is sticking the icons into it. If you think that the TOC should generally be uncollapsed, then I encourage you to share your suggestion at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- The current table of contents on talk pages shows all the level-3 sections in a way that doesn't require any uncollapsing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb two things:
- 1. The new design/table of contents should cope with level 3+ sections as the existing ToC does. See this in action here: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/916be355b2/wiki/Talk:Frances_Perkins#Untitled
- 2. As evidenced by the link to the patchdemo above, there is a prototype of the new talk pages designs on a test wiki that I'm keen to hear what you think about. I'm going to post more details about the prototype and the kinds of things we are seeking to learn in a post I'm drafting now. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "preserved"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a mockup of the desktop that shows multiple sections and more comments at once? Perhaps a scrolled down version of that one? — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
New Topic Tool for everyone
...or maybe not everyone. phab:T306481#7904753 suggests that the mw:New Topic tool is good for newer editors, but once you've made a few thousand edits, it's not as important, and people may not be interested in changing to the new system. OTOH, there's a built-in opt-out button, and remembering to sign your comment with ~~~~ when you start a new ==section== but not when you [reply] could be an unnecessary amount of mental effort. I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about this. We should probably deploy this to newcomers, but should we skip the old hands, or do everyone (with the expectation that many will opt out)? There is no urgency and no pre-determined "correct" answer about this. I would just like to hear what you think would be best. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can provide a capsule summary of the feature, or point to somewhere on the linked metawiki page that describes it? (I couldn't find it in a very quick skim through some of the page; I imagine with more searching I'd be able to find something.) isaacl (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Isaacl, it's sort of the [reply] tool, but for making a ==New section==. mw:Help:DiscussionTools#New topic tool has a screenshot. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF) If there's an easy option to opt out, I don't foresee much chance of a big uproar if it were enabled for everyone by default. The main things that, as an experienced editor, I wish the new topic tool handled better were templates that either include a heading automatically or sign for you automatically.
- At this point, I'd like to see the tool deployed by default at en-WP, as it's holding up us being able to finally remove the "please remember to sign with ~~~~" instruction in a bunch of newcomer-focused messages, and it'll be nicer to have a longer post-deployment period in which you're able to make changes from feedback. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- AIUI your main wish requires rich-text editing in the visual editor, which is a huge project. (But imagine the payoffs: you could edit some contents of an infobox while it was being displayed in the editing window, without having to open a form.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
At this point, I'd like to see the tool deployed by default at en-WP...
- @Sdkb what do you think would be a good first step to take to start the conversation with volunteers at en.wiki about the prospect of enabling the New Topic Tool on desktop by default?
- I ask the above with a few thoughts in mind:
- In light of the recent A/B test results showing the positive impact of the New Topic Tool, the Editing Team is in support of enabling it by default at all projects.
- The process for scaling the New Topic Tool as a default-on feature is going to happen in phases, with us thinking en.wiki being a part of the last stage. See more in phab:T287804.
- With "1." and "2." in mind, for the Editing Team, a deployment to enable the New Topic Tool by default at en.wiki is still some time away. Tho, if you have capacity to start that conversation, we'd be eager to support you. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) I think a proposal to turn it on by default would currently pass, so for that specific thing, there's not really further conversation needed. Just start an RfC at WP:VPR asking "Should it be turned on by default?", provide a background section concisely explaining what the tool is (with a link to try it out) and why you developed it, and issue {{please see}} invites to relevant other pages like this one.
- The part where there is room for further conversation is refining the feature. I've encountered other features before where enabling on en-WP is seen as the culminatory step, and after it's deployed, a bunch of editors see it for the first time and come to the team with feedback, but by that point they've moved onto something else and are no longer available to work on changes. Do you have some period planned post-deployment where you'll be able to work on changes in response to feedback? I'd much rather that the tool be released earlier, while it still has a few rough spots, than that feedback arrive too late. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb, I wonder if you'd be willing to write and post that RFC yourself. If you have to wait on me for it, it's unfortunately going to take a while. (IMO the key point is that it is very easy to turn off.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF) and @PPelberg (WMF), sure — I've gone ahead and started it here. The ultimate rollout schedule is something you'll handle on your end, but I hope that if the RfC is successful, it'll make you comfortable proceeding on en-WP at your earliest convenience. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I appreciate you taking the initiative to get the RfC started. I'm subscribed to the discussion and I am standing by for any questions or issues people might raise that I, @Whatamidoing (WMF), or any members of the team can help address.
- In the meantime, I wonder: do you think it would be worthwhile to mention within the RfC how, in addition to people having the option to
...opt-out...in their preferences.
, the tool offers peoples the ability to switch back to the existingsection = new
experience from directly within the tool as pictured here: File:New Discussion Tool Hint.png? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)- @PPelberg (WMF) I wasn't aware of that; very cool! It could definitely be worth sharing in the discussion section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay! Done. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) I wasn't aware of that; very cool! It could definitely be worth sharing in the discussion section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF) and @PPelberg (WMF), sure — I've gone ahead and started it here. The ultimate rollout schedule is something you'll handle on your end, but I hope that if the RfC is successful, it'll make you comfortable proceeding on en-WP at your earliest convenience. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb, I wonder if you'd be willing to write and post that RFC yourself. If you have to wait on me for it, it's unfortunately going to take a while. (IMO the key point is that it is very easy to turn off.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Prototype Ready for Feedback
A prototype is ready for you all to try the talk page visual changes.
These changes are designed to make it easier for people to understand and use talk pages on desktop and mobile devices.
Below is the information you will need to:
- Try the prototype
- Share feedback about the prototype
Of course, if any questions emerge as you trying out the prototype, please add them here so that @Whatamidoing (WMF) and I can offer guidance. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pinging some people who have offered valuable feedback throughout the Talk pages project as way of inviting them to try the new prototype for the proposed new talk page design:
- @Thryduulf, @Xaosflux (I know I shared the prototype link above :) ), @Qwerfjkl, @Enterprisey, @Isaacl, @Sdkb, @DannyS712, @Doug Weller, @George Ho, @ProcrastinatingReader, @Blaze Wolf, @Nosebagbear, @JohnFromPinckney, @Tenryuu, @The Earwig, @Ahecht, @Barkeep49, @Awesome Aasim, @Mz7, @Ed6767, @Suffusion of Yellow, @Blueboar, @Dreamy Jazz. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Try the Prototype
- Visit this article talk page on the special prototype wiki.
- Find the discussion that has been edited most recently.
- Find the discussion that has the most people participating in it.
- Find the discussion with the most comments.
- Scroll back to the discussion you identified in "Step 4." Figure out how you would do the following:
- Post a reply in the discussion.
- Edit the reply you posted.
- Next, start a discussion about a new topic.
- ✅ You are now ready to share your feedback.
PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Start a new section on this talk page
- Set the topic title to
Feedback: YOUR USERNAME
- Write answers to these questions:
- Did you use a mobile device or a computer to test the prototype?
- What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
- Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
- What do you like about the prototype?
- What do you wish was different about the prototype?
- (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.
- Click the "Add topic" link/button at the top of this page.
- ✅ You are done! Thank you!
PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: Awesome Aasim
- I used a laptop to do this.
- I found it unexpected that there was no "edit comment" button next to the reply.
- Editing was a little bit difficult but not impossible because there was no edit button.
- I like the use of OOUI icons.
- I think the prototype is fine.
- I think this may break on pages like deletion discussions or RfCs where it may be needed to edit one multi-line reply or the RfC question but it may not be possible since the way that signatures have to be done for RfCs.
Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- hi @Awesome Aasim – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share what you thought about it here. Some comments and questions in response below...
- 2.
I found it unexpected that there was no "edit comment" button next to the reply.
- We hear you on this one...
- The ability to edit specific comments is a feature we'd like to offer. Tho, it will likely be some time before this can happen as implementing it depends on some more involved technical work that we cannot take on right now.
- In the meantime, here is where we are tracking this idea: phab:T245225.
- 5.
I think the prototype is fine.
- If there was any aspect of the design you were particularly pleased with, I'd value knowing. But no worries if nothing stood out to you :)
- 6.
I think this may break on pages like deletion discussions or RfCs where it may be needed to edit one multi-line reply or the RfC question but it may not be possible since the way that signatures have to be done for RfCs.
- Question: Are you able to share a link to a discussion that would enable me to see/experience the potential complication you're imagining? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have one right now, but I do know from experience when setting up an RfC I have to structure it like this:
- {{rfc|abcd}}
- Question ~~~~
- More details ~~~~
- An edit link would have to cover both the question and the details. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF): The occasional need for two signatures is in order to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. The RfC statement is delimited by the
{{rfc}}
tag and the first valid signature that occurs after that - within this span, we request brevity and neutrality. That portion of the RfC, less the{{rfc}}
tag itself, is copied by Legobot (talk · contribs) to the RfC listing pages, such as WP:RFC/BIO. For some RfCs, it is necessary to provide a lengthy background, which can easily become not brief, and may well become not neutral either. Hence, two signatures - one to mark the end of the brief and neutral part, which gets bot-copied to the RfC listings; and a second to mark the end of the entire text posted by the person raising the RfC. As a recent example, consider Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?, and observe the two places where the timestamp 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC) occurs. If you also examine WP:RFC/HIST, you'll see the statement part of that RfC terminated with that same timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF): The occasional need for two signatures is in order to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. The RfC statement is delimited by the
Feedback: Xaosflux
- Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
- No I used a desktop (though I have no clue how this would differ from a laptop).
- What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
- That I was "subscribed" to things just because I replied. But I was only subscribed if I replied with the inline reply tool, not if I replied using the regular editor.
- Bug? If a L2 header is followed by a L3 header, but the L2 header lead doesn't seem to have a signature in it, the magic counter and control headers seem to break.
- Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
- 3,4 - they required manually looking at those heading counters in each section and trying to remember the counts of those values. 2 had the same challenge, but the page history helped I think.
- This task is easier to do in vector-2022, as these counters appear in the TOC. Note, the prototype default skin is vector right now though. I have so many other problems with vector-2022 that I wouldn't use it just for this benefit right now.
- What do you like about the prototype?
- The inline reply links seem very easy for new editors to locate and use. I'd probably style them to be less aggressive for myself though.
- What do you wish was different about the prototype?
- The section counters are not authoritative, but the way they are presented makes it seem like they should be reliable.
- In Minerva, the "Reply" link being on a newline instead of at the end of the line is a bit confusing.
- (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.
- It seems to actually be in the way of anything other than basic indented discussions, for example this section
- (meta) "Click the "Add topic" link/button at the top of this page."
- meta-feedback. The directions for feedback start with "Start a new section on this talk page" - so this step at the end of the feedback procedure seems in error. (Besides this page doesn't have a "Add topic" button on my display, especially not when I'm already in the editor at this step. Also feedback prob shouldn't be new l2 sections on this entire page, I've changed the existing ones to l4.
- Feedback is a gift! — xaosflux Talk 13:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback is a gift!
- Indeed it is! Thank you for taking the time to share this feedback with us, @Xaosflux. Some comments and questions in response below...
- A)
That I was "subscribed" to things just because I replied. But I was only subscribed if I replied with the inline reply tool, not if I replied using the regular editor.
- Ah, I see. This is helpful to hear. While we are not yet ready to offer Topic Subscriptions at en.wiki, I thought you might be interested in hearing how - what we're calling – "Automatic Topic Subscriptions" is currently designed and implemented:
- You have the ability to decide whether you are automatically subscribed to topics you comment in and/or start using the Reply or New Topic Tool within Special:Preferences
- Automatic Topic Subscriptions will only be enabled by default for new accounts. People who have accounts when the feature is made available will have to explicitly enable the feature in settings to gain access to it
- You are right. Right now, Automatic Topic Subscriptions is only available with the Reply Tool and New Topic Tool. Tho, if/when there is demand for the feature to be implemented in other editing interfaces, we'll prioritize work on phab:T290041.
- B)
Bug? If a L2 header is followed by a L3 header, but the L2 header lead doesn't seem to have a signature in it, the magic counter and control headers seem to break.
- Assuming this section is an example of what you're describing above, then the behavior you're seeing is intentional (read: not a bug).
- For context: in phab:T302450 we decided on the behavior you're currently experiencing. Of course, if you foresee complications with the approach we've taken so far, I'd value hearing them!
- C)
3,4 - they required manually looking at those heading counters in each section and trying to remember the counts of those values. 2 had the same challenge, but the page history helped I think. This task is easier to do in vector-2022, as these counters appear in the TOC.
- We hear you on this. The new TOC that's available in vector-2022 eases the section-by-section review you referred to having to do.
- Indirectly related to the above: we're experimenting with an iteration of the design that removes the icons from the information that appears beneath section/discussion titles in an effort to make the page easier to scan. If you end up having time to try out that design and have thoughts about it, I'd be keen to hear what you think of it.
- D)
The inline reply links seem very easy for new editors to locate and use. I'd probably style them to be less aggressive for myself though.
- Noted. We're going to explore the design of the Reply button further in phab:T309904.
- E)
The section counters are not authoritative, but the way they are presented makes it seem like they should be reliable.
- Can you please say more here? What about the "section counters" leads you to question their reliability?
- F)
In Minerva, the "Reply" link being on a newline instead of at the end of the line is a bit confusing.
- "Confusing" as in seeing the "Reply" buttons being on a newline led you to be uncertain about what "Reply" button to tap to respond to a specific comment?
- G)
It seems to actually be in the way of anything other than basic indented discussions...
- Can you share what "in the way" means to you in the context of the discussion you linked to? E.g. is there a particular action you find the new design makes it more difficult for you to access? Does the new design make some information more challenging for you to locate? Etc.
- H)
meta-feedback. The directions for feedback start...
- I appreciate you putting thought to the process for sharing feedback itself. Can you share what edits you suggest we make to the Share Feedback instructions? I'm having a bit of a difficult time visualizing the issue(s) you're experiencing. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) see notes below. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- (B) yes in that section, the magic headers with summaries are missing, but that L3 section is an active discussion and could benefit from them. The L3 section there does "contain a discussion", but isn't getting any benefit of the discussion tool.
- (E) the way the counters look in the UI make me think they are an authoritative count of actual actions and edits, but these seem to just estimates based off of the free-form wikitext (i.e. counting text that looks like signatures). For example in this section I forged someones signature, then used a malformed signature - so there actually are more "people in the discussion" and the counter is factually wrong. Most anywhere else in the mediawiki UI if a count is presented it is reliable, in this case it is a dynamic estimate.
- (F) Yes, depending on the current line length/line wrap in some cases it made me think I was going to reply to the parent post - this only happens in Minerva where the replyto control is moved away from the end-of-line. I'd much rather it be inline, and be consistently located across skins.
- (G) the presence of the reply links make me think I should be able to contribute to that section like the other entries in it, however it doesn't let me add to the ordered or bulleted lists, only insert unordered list comments to the existing bulleted or ordered items.
- — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate you following up with these additional details, @Xaosflux.
The L3 section there does "contain a discussion", but isn't getting any benefit of the discussion tool.
- Understood. Here is a ticket for the issue you've spotted: phab:T310560.
...the way the counters look in the UI make me think they are an authoritative count of actual actions and edits, but these seem to just estimates based off of the free-form wikitext (i.e. counting text that looks like signatures)...Most anywhere else in the mediawiki UI if a count is presented it is reliable, in this case it is a dynamic estimate
- Ah, I see. Understood. I agree with you in thinking of the counters that appear each talk page section's heading as estimates.
- Withe above in mind:
- 1) What harm/risk can you foresee resulting from these counters not being 100% accurate in cases like the ones you named? Asked another way: what do you worry could go wrong if the counts are slightly off in some cases?
- 2) Is there something about the counters beings shown beneath each talk page's section headings that you think causes them to require a higher level of precision than the estimates that are present elsewhere within mediawiki? I ask this question thinking about how the number of pages within a category can sometimes be inaccurate.
Yes, depending on the current line length/line wrap in some cases it made me think I was going to reply to the parent post...
- Mmm, I see. I'll be curious to see if people experience confusion similar to what you've named here. In the meantime, I've added a note to phab:T309904 to make sure we remember this feedback.
the presence of the reply links make me think I should be able to contribute to that section like the other entries in it...
- I see. Two resulting questions:
- 1) At what point did you realize the Reply links did NOT work in the way you described above?
- 2) Can you recall encountering a discussion like the vote you linked to where
[ reply ]
links were present and thinking they too would function as you described? - In case you're curious, phab:T249886 is where we're tracking the idea for introducing a workflow for adding an unindented comment. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) Most of our "vote" things are usually in a namespace that doesn't support reply-link, so I don't have any good examples - I'm trying to view that from the eyes of a novice contributor as well - I'm very versed on wikimarkup and what is going on here that the only annoying parts I've run in to are trying to use reply-link somewhere, then just abandoning it and using the wikitext edtor when mixed list types are invovled; on the summary "counts" - I'd only see this as an issue on our project if someone tries to incorrectly present them as accurate later ("A people participated about idea X, while only B people participated about idea Y") - but as popular extensions can be used worldwide for any sorts of reasons, the veracity of that number could be more important to others. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PPelberg (WMF) see notes below. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: Tenryuu
- I used a laptop to test this. Is there a reason why desktops aren't being considered?
- I was surprised that trying to reply to other comments is impossible when the reply tool is being used for one comment.
- Honestly, none of them.
- The reply link now has an icon associated with it.
- Please add an edit link to one's own comments at the very least, like Convenient Discussions.
—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The key point is really whether you use the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org) or the desktop site, although knowing something about your hardware can be helpful, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- hi @Tenryuu – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and write up this feedback! Some comments in response to what you shared below...
I was surprised that trying to reply to other comments is impossible when the reply tool is being used for one comment.
- We hear you. Here is a ticket where we are considering revising this behavior so that people can have multiple Reply Tools open at once: phab:T257305.
- For context, only being able to have one Reply Tool open at a time was a consequence of the necessary auto-saving NOT being in place to support it.
The reply link now has an icon associated with it.
- Can you say a bit more here? What did you appreciate about the reply link having an icon associated with it?
Please add an edit link to one's own comments at the very least, like Convenient Discussions.
- We'd like to be able to offer people the ability to edit specific comments.
- Although, doing the above would require us to make some other, more involved, technical changes that we are not likely to be able to prioritize in the near-term.
- In the meantime, here is a ticket where we are tracking this issue: phab:T245225. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF): I'm a sucker for icons. They become associated with a concept rather quickly, which can help editors learn what things do faster if they encounter it or something similar somewhere else. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Can you say a bit more here? What did you appreciate about the reply link having an icon associated with it?
Feedback: Barkeep49
- Desktop
- The subscription notifications.
- I didn't initially see the # of people responding and # of comments until I went back to answer this question. Also it appears some topics don't have those?
- The increased use of icons (including the bigger reply button)
- A way to adjust the default subscription option when replying or starting a topic.
I continue to appreciate the ways this project has progressed and features have been added. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Topics only report the number of people/comments if there is a detectable signature in between the ==Section heading== and any ===Subsections=== (or the next ==Section==). For example, this section doesn't have and detectable signatures in the relevant location. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- hi @Barkeep49 - thank you for giving the prototype a try and coming back here to share what you thought about it. Some follow up comments and questions in response below…
- A)
subsription notifications
- Can you say more here? Would it be accurate for me to understand you as saying that you found it unexpected for the “🔔 Subscribe” buttons to appear as they did? Are you referring to how you might have been automatically subscribed to a discussion you started or commented within on the prototype wiki? Something else?
- B)
I didn't initially see the # of people responding and # of comments until I went back to answer this question.
- Understood. And when you did notice the information that appears beneath ‘’some section titles’’ (more on this below), what did you think of it? Could you imagine finding that information useful? If so, how?
- C)
Also it appears some topics don't have those?
- Assuming it is accurate for me to think the topics you are referring to above are H2’s that don’t contain any signed comments then this behavior is expected. Tho, if you found this to be confusing, I’d value knowing!
- D)
The increased use of icons (including the bigger reply button)
- This is helpful to know.
- E)
A way to adjust the default subscription option when replying or starting a topic.
- Just to make sure, you’re wanting to be able to decide whether you are automatically subscribed to a topic you are starting or a topic you are commenting in rather than making this decision “once” via Preferences?
- F)
I continue to appreciate the ways this project has progressed and features have been added.
Knowing you find the work we are doing useful makes me, and the entire team, happy to hear…thank you for letting us know as much. ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: Sdkb
- Laptop
- The comments count, participants count, and last comment at the top of each level-2 section was the main new thing that stood out. Also, it was a little weird after I posted the new topic for it to immediately say "47 seconds ago" rather than starting at "0 seconds ago".
- For steps 2–4, I had to scroll down the page, stopping at each section. The information wasn't available in the table of contents, nor was it possible to sort the discussions. Also, to edit my own comment, I had to go into source editor, rather than having a more convenient button to click.
- I liked how each signature had a clear reply button after it.
- I wish that more of the information was in the table of contents so I wouldn't have to scroll to find it. Also, it'd be nice if hovering over the participants count caused a list of them to come up (perhaps even identifying if any are admins, although that might be controversial).
{{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: Ed6767
- Mainly desktop but did a quick test on mobile
- The way discussion sections are split
- Adding a topic wasn't as clear as I'd like. I'd expect like a clear button maybe at the top of the page, rather than/alongside the "Add topic" tab option. Preferably, if it was alongside the "Last comment...." info at the top of the page and had a plus icon similar to this. I really don't like that the "reply" button is appended to the end of the comment on the same line and would prefer it be split to a different line to separate content and actions a bit better.
- I love how modern and friendly it feels. I also like the ease of subscribing to each topic and the popovers telling me what I've subscribed to and how I'll be notified.
- I would really like indent lines similar to Reddit and Convenient discussions so long threads can be collapsed and it is also easier to follow along. If possible, the signature should be split on to a new line and put alongside the action buttons (reply etc.) or the signature put on the top line.
- Pages where discussions have been closed
-✨ Ed talk! ✨ 00:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: isaacl
- Laptop
- Having to create a new account.
- Finding the section with the most comments; I searched for all occurrences of " comments".
- The "Last comment" info; it's an easy way to see if a discussion is still active.
- Reply indicators are too obtrusive for my personal taste.
Asking to find the sections with the most comments or the most participants doesn't, in my view, reflect a real-world workflow for most editors. I appreciate it's hard to mimic an actual workflow that would make use of this info with a mockup, since this info is probably most useful when returning to a discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback: MichaelMaggs
I have been using the beta version of this on enW for a while, so some of my suggestions are informed by my experiences of that as well.
1. Neither - desktop
2. Unexpected:
- As discussed at length elsewhere, it's a bit odd that the edit summary is collapsed behind an "Advanced" link, but the "Reply" default seems fine
- Probably just a testing issue, but I didn't expect to have to use an entirely new wiki which required me to set up a new account before I started. Can't recall having to do that when previously providing similar feedback. Hope not to have to do that every time
3. Difficulties:
- It was difficult to edit my own comment, as there still seems to be no new option to do that (if there was I didn't see it), so I had to scroll right to the top and do it in the wiki editor. By no mean obvious for an inexperienced user. After saving the correction, I was left at the very top of a very long thread and had to scroll right down to the bottom again to assure myself that everything looked OK. In live editing, I find this to be a real hassle when working on long talk pages, and pages with many comments. All the scrolling up and down, and re-finding my place, takes ages!
- In the beta version, the find user icon above the text box doesn't always find all the editors in the thread, but I didn't check that in this prototype.
4. Like:
- I like the clear reply icons, and the orange flush that highlights a new topic. I don't find either intrusive
- The visual/source option for the reply box works well, as does the preview underneath
- The last edit date, number of users and number of comments are useful, and not too intrusive
- The subscribe/unsubscribe icons on the right are clear
- The Share feedback link is a nice touch
5. Would like to see:
- an "edit" button next to (all) my own comments to avoid the need for the wiki editor
- a one-click button somewhere to take me directly to the top of the page (and ideally to the top of the current section)
- some way to collapse discussions
- a "people in discussion" mouseover that provides a clickable list of users. Would be a quick way to go to a user's talk page
Are you testing how this integrates with 2022 Vector skin? Using that for live editing I see a few differences, such as a table of contents in the left margin that doesn't appear in the Patch demo prototype. (No actual conflicts so far as I can tell so far). MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @MichaelMaggs, try this link: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/916be355b2/wiki/Talk:Talk_Pages_Project?useskin=vector-2022 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Enabling the New Topic Tool by default
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
New Subsection Tool as a counterpart to the New Topic Tool
I recently added the new topic tool, and I've found it to be very useful. I like the consistency between it and the reply tool, in terms of how it looks and functions. Would it be possible to get a counterpart to the New Topic Tool focused on adding new subsections to existing topics? I'd envisage it using the same UI as the topic and reply tools, and accessed with a "New Subsection" button that appears next to the edit source button at each section header. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Editing newsletter 2022 – #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.
23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Bug report with New Section tool: header creation from edit summary
I've encountered this twice now. If you're using a {{subst}} template that inserts a section header, for example using {{subst:An3-notice}}
, if you leave the Title field blank but fill in the Edit Summary to match the header, the new section tool will automatically add a header based on the edit summary.
In this diff you can see that two headers have been created. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
comes from the substitution template. == /* Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion */ ==
comes from the text in the edit summary.
Not sure how to resolve this to allow use of substitution templates and edit summaries with the new section tool. The correct behaviour should be that only one section header is created. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The MediaWiki software is written so that you can have a "Subject" box above the edit window, or an "Edit summary" box below it; but you won't have both. Whichever way you fire up an edit window, you will have exactly one of those: no more, no less. As it happens, the underlying HTML has the same
id="wpSummary"
attribute for both the Subject and the Edit summary input boxes, so your browser uses the same table of prefill values. Except probably MS browsers, which have always been ... different. - Tip: if you're using a template that adds its own heading (n.b. not "header"), don't use the new section feature. Instead, go to the bottom of the page and edit the last thread. Paste your
{{subst:An3-notice}}
below that, preview, copy the new heading to your clipboard (which might beNotice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
), then click on the edit summary box, blank out whatever is in there currently, and replace it with this:making sure that the part between/* Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion */ new section
/* ... */
is pasted from the section heading that you copied. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)The MediaWiki software is written so that you can have a "Subject" box above the edit window, or an "Edit summary" box below it; but you won't have both.
That isn't true for the new section tool, which per the screenshot that should be embedded with this reply has both. I've checked in the current versions of Firefox, Chrome, and Edge, and all have both a title and summary box per the screenshot.- Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops, I'd thought this was VPT or somewhere like that, didn't notice that it's a new feature trial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! That's why I included a screenshot with the reply, cause it visualises it better than I can describe! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops, I'd thought this was VPT or somewhere like that, didn't notice that it's a new feature trial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a bug in the MediaWiki API we use in the new topic tool to save your edit (T54747), somewhat related to the situation in the wikitext editor that Redrose64 described above. Matma Rex talk 10:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Tab controls?
- (Cross posted from mw:Topic:Wwybz4ab9ptky41c)
So, when using the quick reply tool, can TAB go to either the edit summary or the submit button, similar to if you are in the wikitext editor? Having it go to the next hyperlink on the page (for example in the preview) doesn't seem very helpful. — xaosflux Talk 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This idea was previously discussed in T271773. At the time it seemed like it wouldn't necessarily be intuitive, and could be particularly confusing for screen-reader users. In my own experience, in cases where I'd previously press Tab then Enter to submit a message, I just press Ctrl+Enter. Matma Rex talk 16:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)