Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

Manual topic subscriptions[edit]

About a month ago, we had a lot of fun with the discussion that is now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#dtenable testing. I think the [subscribe] button is working pretty well, and I'd like to recommend that the devs put it into the Beta Feature here. If they do this, then the [subscribe] button will appear on talk pages if you have turned on "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. If you don't have the Beta Feature turned on, then nothing will change for you.

I'm going to ping everyone from the old discussion (apologies if I miss anyone). This is your best opportunity to object, if you don't think the [subscribe] tool should be used (in a testing mode) here: Elli, Timtempleton, Mandarax, TheDJ, Opabinia regalis, RoySmith, Pelagic, Schazjmd, Klein Muçi, Matma Rex, Qwerfjkl, Cryptic, Blaze The Wolf, Nick Moyes, Asartea, Chipmunkdavis, Enterprisey, Xaosflux, Yair rand, Pppery, Jorm, Sdkb, PPelberg (WMF), and User:DLynch (WMF).

If you want to try it out on this page, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project?dtenable=1 is the magic link. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Not sure if I love all-or-nothing DT+Subscribe tool, can these be OR in beta features? — xaosflux Talk 22:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    If you turn the Beta Feature on, then you can turn individual components off in the "Editing" tab. I suspect that reply+subscribe without New Discussions will be a popular alternative for experienced editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm looking forward to it. I enjoy the whole changes that have been happening on the talk page infrastructure and have wanted changes like these to happen a long time ago. Now if we only could have a fast-edit option and everything would be perfect. - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    A fast-edit option is blocked by the parser upgrades. Maybe this decade, but not this year. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    Klein is sad. :( - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support rolling out to beta. The feature works, and it's badly wanted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    I think someone else mentioned this somewhere, but I'd also like to see an option to subscribe by default to any discussion you start strongly considered. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's called "automatic" topic subscription. See phab:T263819. – SD0001 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    Among the options being considered:
    • automatic for new sections (but not replies)
    • automatic for everything posted by new editors (existing editors could opt-in)
    • automatic for everything and everyone
    I think the technical end of automatic subscriptions will be fairly straightforward, but I'm concerned about the "social" effects. IMO the biggest risk is: What if this speeds up disputes? A fast and happy conversation is fine, but a fast and angry one might make people hate editing. Imagine that I'm involved in angry dispute, maybe over some COVID disinformation. Maybe I'd rather be able to open other pages without having a notification pop up to say that Wikipedia:Randy in Boise has just replied again to promote his conspiracy theory. Maybe it'd be better for me to not know that he has replied until tomorrow, when I might be feeling a little more detached (or whenever I checked my watchlist, because all comments will additionally appear in your watchlist – there's no connection/interaction between the two systems). Maybe it'd be better for me to not get a notification until some other editor has had a chance to step into the conversation.
    I could learn to step back, to Wikipedia:Breathe, to WP:KEEPCOOL, to give people a chance to meatball:DefendEachOther, and to let the notification sit for a while (maybe a long while: Echo/Notifications are auto-deleted after two years and/or 2,000 newer messages, whichever comes first). But I wonder how long it would take for all of us to learn that and to support each other in that approach, and how much nastiness might happen before then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    That might have been a good reason to make the subscription feature work through watchlists rather than notifications. It seems like you made that decision a while back, though. I think if you make the option something that's opt-in rather than on by default, that'd reduce its usage, especially among newer editors who might be the most likely to get into trouble. One thing to consider, though, is that most replies already happen right after we read something, even if we just come across it in our watchlist; the notifications may speed up the pace of the discussion, but I'm not sure they're reducing the breather pause before replying. If this continues to be a big concern and you want to get fancy, one thing I noticed that Facebook Messenger recently implemented is a "remind me later" option, where you can dismiss a push notification about a message and it'll come back in a few hours. You could consider building something like that for Wikipedia notifications to encourage breathers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    I understand that it's much easier to integrate these notifications into Echo/Notifications than to integrate them into the watchlist. Also, one of the things that the communities said is that it's really important for newbies to get these notifications, and I am not sure that new editors use their watchlists regularly.
    I have wondered whether automatic subscriptions should be on by default for newcomers and off by default for experienced editors.
    I like your idea of a "remind me later" option. Someone else suggested a maximum of one notification per day per conversation. I'm not sure what I think about that – not a bad idea, but I'm not sure it's a good idea, either. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as I find it more useful to subscribe to specific conversations as opposed to entire talk pages (especially with the broken archive bot over at the Teahouse). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. There was lots of nit-picking about minor details in the WP:VPT thread, but I think it was universally hailed as an excellent piece of work and an important improvement in how talk pages work. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, although not a pingee. My sole disappointment about this feature was that it worked only on talk pages, not places where I'd really use it, like ANI or the Teahouse (as Blaze mentioned). But hey! Look! I just tried it out (again), and apparently it works (with ?dtenable=1) there, so I am very much looking forward to this becoming a reality. And if it always worked, then I have no explanation for why I thought it didn't. Bring it on. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    See this comment on WT:TEA. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat I don't currently use the Beta Features. Potentially very useful, would be good to see how it interacts with other functions. CMD (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support this, the new features are awesome. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments. The team's planning to add this to the Beta Features tomorrow. The [subscribe] button will only be available if you have the Beta Feature enabled. If you want topic subscriptions but nothing else, then you can enable "Discussion Tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and then immediately go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and disable everything except the topic subscriptions/notifications item (which isn't there today, but the other current ones are).
    NB: If you enable the Beta Feature, you'll still see future features, one of which will change the appearance of the talk pages. I'll post here before then (it could be months from now), but please just make a mental note that if the article page looks normal and the talk page looks different, then mw:Talk pages project/Usability has probably appeared, and if you don't want to spend a week or two getting used to it, then you'll just need to head back to the same Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and turn that off, too. I think the "Usability" work is going to be a good thing (they want to add some information, like a count of how many people have commented and a note about how long it's been since the last edit, and that means there has to be a place to put that information, and that logically means that the appearance has to change...), but all changes to appearance require a while to get used to them. So if you don't want to do that, that's okay; you'll just need to turn it off. (It can't be pre-turned-off now because the feature doesn't exist yet.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think I'll continue to use JavaScript as I described in WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#new discussion tool: where is "subscribe"? to make it available as needed without always cluttering up pages.
    One thing I would strongly prefer is for the notifications to go elsewhere. Having it in the same place as other notifications makes it much less likely that I'll want to use it very often. It should have its own dedicated location, either a separate icon next to the existing notifications icon, or on the Watchlist page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Mandarax I'm glad you decided to share share this feedback here because this broader topic of what might be a more valuable way of surfacing communication-related notifications is a topic I think could benefit from more discussion.
    A couple of questions for you...
    1. Would it be accurate for the "elsewhere" you were referring to here [i] be a dedicated space for all communication-related notifications/activity to be shown?
    2. More broadly, are you able to share what prompted you to post this feedback [i]? Asked another way: what have you noticed happening as a result of notifications from conversations you are subscribed to appearing within "Notices"?
    ---
    i. "One thing I would strongly prefer is for the notifications to go elsewhere. Having it in the same place as other notifications makes it much less likely that I'll want to use it very often." PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • PPelberg (WMF), what prompted this was the realization that even just a few subscriptions could potentially cause an overwhelming number of notifications, and the other types could get lost among them. I was suggesting that the current notification icon ( OOjs UI icon tray.svg ) should continue to function as it has previously, and section subscription notifications would be counted separately with their own icon. It seems that the most logical location for a new icon would be at the top of one's watchlist page, which is where one could always check for activity on the subscribed-to pages. I can also see how some people would prefer it with the other notifications, but it would be better with its own dedicated icon next to the others. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    🎉 The [subscribe] button is now available everywhere, if you have the Beta Feature enabled.
    This conversation has 23 comments (this comment is #24), and that means that if you subscribed to it from the beginning, you probably received ~20 notifications. Two conversations like this each week for six months would be a thousand notifications, which probably would seem overwhelming to many editors.
    This is probably a good time to remind everyone that the Notification message for subscribed topics has an ••• options menu, and an "Unsubscribe" link is hidden in there, in addition to the one at the top of every section. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    WOOHOO! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Mandarax this extra bit of context is helpful – thank you for sharing it with us.
    You raising the idea of showing some kind of indication within the Watchlist when people have unread new comment notifications is leading me to think it may be helpful, to start, to provide some kind of link to Special:TopicSubscriptions within the Watchlist.
    We are tracking ideas for where and how we might show "entry points to Special:TopicSubscriptions in Phabricator here: phab:T289906. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Prototype: Automatic Topic Subscriptions[edit]

The idea of becoming automatically subscribed to discussions you participate in has been floating around since Manual Topic Subscriptions were first introduced.

Now, there is a prototype ready we would value you all trying to see how the "automatic topic subscription" experience could look and work.

If you are interested, below is the information you will need to:

  1. Try the prototype and
  2. Share feedback about the prototype

If any questions come up as you are attempting to try the prototype, please post them here...it is likely someone is wondering something similar to what you are. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying the prototype
  1. On a desktop / laptop computer, visit: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/2f3d9efbec/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
  2. Create an account by clicking the Create account link. Note: this is a test wiki so you will not be able to log in using the same username you use on other projects.
  3. Return to https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/2f3d9efbec/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
  4. Start a new discussion
  5. Comment in an existing discussion
  6. Disable being automatically subscribed to the discussions you start and/or comment in
Note: for ease of testing, the popup appears every time you get auto-subscribed. In the production version, the popup will only appear once. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Sharing Feedback
Once you have tried the prototype and you are ready to share what you think of it, please:
  1. Add a comment in this discussion with answers to the following questions:
    1. What did you find unexpected about how the prototype looks and functions?
    2. What do you appreciate about the prototype?
    3. What do you wish was different about the prototype?
PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF):How to enable this on this wikipedia? Greatder (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
hi @Greatder – you can enable the Automatic Topic Subscription beta feature on your account by doing the following:
  1. Using the desktop site, visit: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
  2. Confirm the "Discussion tools" beta feature is enabled
  3. Visit: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing
  4. Find the "Enable topic subscription" setting and enable it by clicking the checkbox that appears next to the setting
  5. Now, find the the "Automatically subscribe to topics" setting
  6. Click the checkbox that appears next to the "Automatically subscribe to topics" setting
  7. Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing page
  8. On the desktop site, start a new discussion on a talk page or comment in an existing discussion
  9. Notice after publishing the new discussion topic or comment described in "Step 8.", you see that you've become automatically subscribed to the discussion you just started or commented in
  10. ✅ That's it
Can you please comment here if you run into any issues doing the above? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks PPelberg (WMF)! I will be testing it for now and will report (if) I find something unusual. Greatder (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I will be testing it for now and will report (if) I find something unusual.
Wonderful and that sounds great, @Greatder. Also, if you encounter any questions, please just ping me or @Whatamidoing (WMF). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Script[edit]

Hi! I created a script (here) for toggling all the subscribe buttons on a page, because I find the subscribe tool notifications more useful than the watchlist. Enjoy! ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What a neat idea, @Qwerfjkl! Once I install the script, what should I expect to see when I visit a talk page at en.wiki? A button/link of some sort that enables me to subscribe to all of the discussions present on the page?
I ask the above having tried both installation "Method 2" and "Method 3" that you described here [1] [2] tho I'm still not noticing any changes when I visit a talk page like this one... PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF): Hi! You should see a 'subscribe all' link under the 'Tools' section on the left-hand navigation bar (at least on Vector). ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Got it! I see the Subscribe all link now. However, when I click it, I'm not seeing:
A) The [ subscribe ] affordances on the page turn to the [ unsubscribe ] state
B) The pages I had not been subscribed to appear within Special:TopicSubscriptions
...does the above sound unexpected to you?
Thank you for your help troubleshooting this! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Strange. I get a bunch of notifications saying You have (un)subscribed. Do you get any errors in your console log? (ctrl+⇧ Shift+j on Windows) ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF): I.e.:
Screenshot of subscribeall script 2022-01-30 200338.png
 ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to look into this, @Qwerfjkl. Here is what I'm seeing in my browser's (Chrome) console after: 1) Loading this page and clicking the 2) Subscribe all link. Do you see anything that could help explain the issue I'm experiencing? Also, if there is any other information I can help provide to make debugging this easier, please let me know!
Subscribe all script console screenshot.png
PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF): Okay, I've added a few console.log()s.
If you re·run it the console should contain:
Links from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/subscribeall.js&action=edit:
[object HTMLCollection]

13VM1307:13 subscribeall.js: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project
The 13VM1307:13 appears on the right, and will probably be different for you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Location of subscribe link[edit]

Once upon a time, the section edit link was right justified, but then it was moved to immediately following the section title for... user experience reasons I cannot remember and I can't find the discussion on the matter. Does anyone remember the motivation for the change? I'm just wondering if it should be taken into account regarding the placement of the subscribe link. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I remember the change, but I don't remember the reason for it. It might have been a way to simplify the technical side.
Jess (the designer) is looking at rearranging several things, and that might be one of them. I'm calling this mw:Talk pages project/Usability, and hopefully we'll get a few screenshots/mockups posted in the next few days. One of the ideas is to add more information/features (e.g., a permalink to the section) in a ⋮ kebab menu. If people primarily use the [reply] buttons, and if automatic topic subscriptions turns out to be a good thing, then even the [edit source] button could be "hidden" in a drop-down menu. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, if a right-justified link is considered OK now, I'd rather have the edit link there and the subscribe link next to the title or somewhere else. But... it would probably be too much churn to the user experience at this point. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 deployment[edit]

Hello, all,

As an update on our October discussion about the #Reply tool status, we're cleared for takeoff...in January. The [reply] tool (nothing else) will be deployed default-on for all editors some time in January. Since I expect most questions (How do I turn it off? Why doesn't it work on this page?) to end up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), I've just posted links to the relevant help pages over there. The discussion at VPM in November didn't raise any questions that would make me concerned about everyone using this. (That's also the place to go if you dislike the appearance of the [reply] button.)

Hopefully this will really get out the door in January. It's been a long time coming. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: Realistically, I think Tuesday, January 11th is the earliest possible day. NB that I don't expect it to happen that day, either, but I think we can safely rule out any deployment here before then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Will this progress be brought to mobile too?[edit]

Progress on mobile seems to be stalled. Unlike desktop commenting on mobile offers no link, ping, bold, italic buttons. Everything is source only mode. Greatder (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Great question, @Greatder. The mw:Editing Team will soon begin work on bringing improvements, like the ones you mentioned above, to mobile web talk pages.
You might value reading this page which offers details about the plans we have for making it easier for people to use mobile talk pages in productive ways.
Also, if that page brings any new questions to mind, please ping me here on this talk page. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I hope discussions can be expanded and shrinked like reddit. It will make discussions a lot easier to navigate.(and auto reply pings) Greatder (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you say a bit more here, @Greatder? When you say, "... discussions can be expanded and shrinked like reddit." are you referring to be able to collapse and expand discussions (read: h2 sections)? Threads within discussions? Something else?
And about auto reply pings: would it be accurate for us to understand you suggesting this feature as a strategy for increasing the likelihood someone will see, and ultimately respond to, the comment you are leaving for them? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with this - no edit summaries[edit]

I think that editors should be able to leave edit summaries when replying. The tool prevents me from doing this. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If you click "advanced" below the edit box you will see a place to enter an edit summary. Whether it should be hidden by default is a different matter. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm told it's not automatically available in order not to distract new users. IMHO we should want them to see it and get the idea they should be using it. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree. Edit summaries should not be seen as a distraction, but as an integral part of leaving a comment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
See my discussion here.[1]. Are people with no experience with watchlists or even the actual Wikipedia encyclopedias making decisions about this? Doug Weller talk 17:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't previously aware of this practice. I don't think edit summaries are relevant to leaving a comment. What should be written besides "reply"? Update: I read the linked discussion at mw:Talk:Talk pages project and am not convinced that we need to encourage such edit summaries. It also doesn't seem to be a widespread community practice, although there is a subset of editors doing it (from a random survey of discussion pages). If I need to figure out what a comment on my watchlist is, I use User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/inlineDiffDocs to expand the diff inline.
On the other hand: EDITSUMCITE does seem to mention talk pages (which surprised me), and I can see how watchlists and contribs lists would be more useful. Overall, though, I don't think the convenience is worth it. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There's just a small set of users who use edit summaries for talk page comments, so the field should not be made visible by default. Maybe there could be an opt-in feature that makes it visible by default, as in reply-link and CD. – SD0001 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand where you are getting this "small set of users" nonsense from? Nearly every editor here uses an edit summary on nearly every page - just look at the page history of any page - even Enterprisey is using edit summaries! Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
(Replied there.) Enterprisey (talk!) 11:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not true for most users while adding new talk page comments (which is the only thing reply tool supports). In any case, I don't think an edit summary like this is helpful. – SD0001 (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
They are very useful when you want to be sure that a point you are making in the discussion is recorded somehow in the history. This can be particularly useful when discussing issues involving sanction areas, NPOV/RS etc areas, vandalism and more. Sure, I often use just C for comment if I don't think it merits a description in the edit summary. And of course there's watchlists, where edit summaries on discussion pages can be very useful. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
As a thread gets longer, the tool keeps indenting until it's all squeeze to the right -I haven't yet seen what happens if people continue, does it have a version of "od"? Doug Weller talk 15:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no "outdent" built-in (it's been requested, but not designed or built yet). However, if you reply to an earlier comment, it will align your comment with the one you're replying to, so you can work around this limitation. (This depends upon the discussion complying with WP:LISTGAP, so sometimes it won't.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

On the open question of whether custom edit summaries should be encouraged more, I think it's always useful to see what experienced editors have actually been doing. Here's a sample of the latest behavior in the article Talk: namespace only:

  1. Origin
  2. [no edit summary used]
  3. [no edit summary used; also, unsigned]
  4. what do do with plural
  5. incoherent and wp:NOTAFORUM
  6. [no edit summary used]
  7. [no edit summary used]
  8. other cases
  9. : The Wright Flyer is listed in the examples...
  10. [no edit summary used]
  11. +reply
  12. [no edit summary used]
  13. [no edit summary used]
  14. [no edit summary used]
  15. cmt
  16. Reply [used Reply tool']
  17. [no edit summary used]
  18. replies and advice
  19. [no edit summary used]
  20. This one no longer is.
  21. Mimicking others in reverts
  22. [no edit summary used]
  23. RM
  24. [no edit summary used]
  25. [no edit summary used]
  26. [no edit summary used]
  27. [no edit summary used]
  28. [no edit summary used]
  29. [no edit summary used]
  30. Reply [used Reply tool]
  31. update
  32. leading doctors though
  33. [no edit summary used]
  34. more comments
  35. [no edit summary used]
  36. any further issues?
  37. Eugène: Piliuona → Kruonis → Ziezmariai → Strosiunai → Mijaugonys? → Rykantai → Trakai
  38. copying IP reply from my talk page and replying
  39. [no edit summary used]
  40. more comments
  41. urgh.
  42. ::I googled "Sisak children concentration camp" and this page was the first hit. ~~~~
  43. [no edit summary used]
  44. no.
  45. Reply [used Reply tool]

I eliminated any edit that created a new section using &action=edit&section=new, because the 2010 wikitext editor doesn't permit custom edit summaries in that case (the Reply tool's counterpart, the New Discssion tool, does), and all of the edits that used scripts (e.g., Twinkle, AFCH, various WikiProject rating scripts), and edits that didn't involve a comment. I attempted to include only those edits that could have been made with the Reply tool, but it was a manual process, so I probably misclassified a few. All of these edits were made by editors with >500 edits (WP:EXTCONFIRMED).

As you can see, about half of the edits didn't use any edit summary at all, or used only general edit summaries, like "cmt" or "more comments". Based on the ::formatting, two of them seem to have copied and pasted their comment into the edit summary.

Overall, the existing behavior does not seem to me to be very strong evidence that experienced editors consider custom edit summaries to be a critical component of participating in a discussion on a talk page.

For comparison, I did a separate search, looking specifically at edits made with the Reply tool. This search showed 100% edit summaries (because it defaults to "Reply"), of which almost 7% were custom edit summaries. It looked like a handful of editors use the custom edit summary option regularly, and others occasionally. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The edit summary option setting is sticky. If you click the "Advanced" link then it reveals the edit summary. Once you've done this, future replies will show the edit summary by default.
My view is that the interface should not use the word "Advanced" for this. This suggests that there's a bundle of advanced options whereas it just seems to conceal the edit summary. The option should be more clearly labelled as Edit summary (hide) or Edit summary (show).
Most of the time, a default edit summary of "reply to <user>" will be fine. The evidence presented by Whatamidoing (WMF) shows that this default would be superior to current manual summaries as they are usually blank.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The word "advanced" is confusing. It makes much more sense for the label to clearly state what it does. I'd also prefer it if the word "reply" wasn't there when I click it - what's the point? Doug Weller talk 10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
"More options"? Enterprisey (talk!) 11:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Enterprisey: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I was suggesting "More options" as a label for that part, assuming the developers will someday want to put more stuff in there than just the edit summary. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think if there aren't more options, that would be confusing. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually think that "Reply" is a very reasonable default edit summary for a reply on a talk page. I would only need to alter that if I needed to somehow belabour or highlight a point, ping someone silently, or make my particular post stand out in View History. In all other situations - especially for new users - it is what it says on the tin: a Reply. I do, however, think Edit summary (hide)/(show) is an excellent proposal. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Reply is fine for a default if you don't want to add your own. But if there is any way to not have it show when you click on whatever it will say when we want to actually make an edit summary, it would be nice. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind it autofilling with reply, but I would like this to default appear for all. We want to try to inculate leaving an edit summary into new editors as quickly as possible, and having it hidden as an "advanced option" (which it's not) is counter to that. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool not necessarily activated by magic word?[edit]

Resolved

mw:Extension:DiscussionTools#Reply tool and mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Replying say that the Reply Tool is available on, among other pages, pages with the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word, but I find that the tool is not necessarily available on such pages. For example, after I added the magic word in my sandbox, my sandbox was enhanced with a "New section" button but no "[ reply ]" buttons. Am I missing something?

Also, pasting the quotation above from rich text into wikitext, I for the first time encountered the message You pasted content with rich formatting. Would you like to convert this formatting to wikitext?, followed by DiscussionTools' helpfully adding the markup I would have lost. Thanks!

—2d37 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

hi @2d37 – we appreciate you spending the time to experiment with these new tools and coming here to share the experience you're having with them so far!
Now, as it relates to ...no "[ reply ]" buttons. appearing on your sandbox page, are still experience this issue?
The Reply Tool seems to be appearing for me, as evidenced by the comment I made using it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @PPelberg (WMF). I see the "[ reply ]" buttons there now. The issue appears to have been fixed. —2d37 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, wonderful – I'm glad to hear it ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool appears to use wrong list type after bulleted comments[edit]

In Special:Diff/1064959257, I used the Reply Tool to reply to an RfD nomination, after there were already two replies using '*'-list syntax, and the Reply Tool, rather than adding a new '*'-list item, created a new ':'-list. I've recreated this behavior at User talk:2d37/sandbox, from Special:Diff/1065551849 to Special:Diff/1065552134.

I guess the tool could see the '*' replies as a '*'-list inside the nominator's post. Is this an accepted limitation of the Reply Tool that I should keep in mind? It could use the signatures in the '*'-list to decide that they're separate comments, but maybe that would be unreliable?

—2d37 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Support for "voting-style" discussions is a known limitation. The devs have been thinking about a new magic word that could be used to identify when this behavior is wanted (e.g., in RFCs) and when it's not (e.g., most of the time). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Clicking a collapsed subscription notification doesn't do a thing I liked anymore[edit]

At some point, clicking a notification like "5 new replies on [topic]" would take me to the subscribed thread and highlight all the new replies. Now it just takes me to the top of the thread, and only highlights if I expand the notification and click each reply individually. Is this something that was removed on purpose? JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay we value you coming here to report this issue. The functionality you are describing was not removed on purpose, but rather caused by a bug (phab:T299813) that should be fixed next week. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, that's all I needed to know, thank you! JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
You got it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, if I'm reading the task timeline correctly, the issue was opened just 30 minutes before I finally decided to make this comment (after noticing it but misattributing the cause on January 8), which, wow, what are the odds! JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
A delightful coincidence indeed ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay a quick update: the fix for this issue should arrive at en.wiki tomorrow, 27-Jan-2022. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool as Opt-Out and Upcoming Work[edit]

Hi y'all – as we prepare to offer the Reply Tool as an on-by-default feature at en.wiki on desktop, the Editing Team thought you would value knowing about the work we'll continue doing to improve the Reply Tool and to, more broadly, make it easier for people to use talk pages in productive ways.

With the above said, below is a non-exhaustive list of the upcoming work we have planned. We would valuing knowing if anything here prompts thoughts, questions, etc.

Upcoming Talk Page Work

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Dumb question -- how can I opt out of this? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion takes you to the relevant part of your prefs. (It may not be visible yet, unless you have the Beta Feature enabled.) @Xaosflux has added this to the documentation. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion tools hiding error messages?[edit]

I came across Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disappearing chunks of talkpage text where some editors using Discussion Tools (including me) do not see an error message about an unmatched <ref> tag when viewing Special:Permalink/1071912592. Perhaps there is some kind of race condition? isaacl (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: are you getting this with only reply tool enabled, or only if all of the DT experiments are enabled? — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
For me, I didn't realize the errors only appear on talk pages if you enable them by adding a CSS rule to your personal style file (as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 195 § Disappearing chunks of talkpage text). However the last post in that thread refers to phab:T301845 being opened to fix the problem in general. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Isaacl: ok thanks - don't see that as a "reply tool rollout" blocker, yet. — xaosflux Talk 16:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess it can affect discussions on Wikipedia namespace pages? References aren't used often there, but it does happen. Given that a fix has been merged and I think is currently awaiting or undergoing quality assurance testing (I'm not sure how to read the Phabricator task status), personally I suggest waiting until the fix is released. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This patch is up for QA review. My guess is that it's likely to be fixed on wiki by next WP:THURSDAY. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Gamma Testers[edit]

Watchlist notice opened for final gamma test. As this has been advertised we are assuming no blocking tasks unless new issues are reported here or at phab. — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Apologies if this isn't an appropriate question here but, why is it called the "Gamma test" instead of "beta test"? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I suspect because since it's been an opt-in functionality for some time, that was the alpha test. This is more like a brief third tranche just short of global opt-out Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Because the beta test already completed - but we pushed back that we wanted more testing, so have gone for a third test wave - all of the functional requirements are expected to be met already from the beta test, this is really a last chance to raise blocking bugs before deployment. — xaosflux Talk 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Once it's been fully rolled out and everyone's got it, we're going to call it Omicron! 😂 Nick Moyes (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
*Ba dum tss* ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a function that I would like to be in the reply tool that hasn't been added yet. That is that the reply tool doesn't see any stylization after you add your signature and thinks that you didn't add your signature if you add anything, resulting in a double signature, one with the styling and one without. For example, if I were to make my comment small, if I add </small> after my signature to make my entire comment small, it thinks I didn't add my signature and inserts it again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I've opened phab:T302257 on this. I don't think it should be considered a blocking bug, but should be looked in to. — xaosflux Talk 00:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
How do you sign up for the Gamma Test? I'm interested. J390 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@J390: Preferences -> Beta Features -> Select the one called "Discussion Tools" -> Save. This includes more than just the reply tool from what I've been told but you don't have to use the other features. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_pages_project#Opting_in — xaosflux Talk 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool[edit]

It used to work on my user talk page. Now it doesn't. Did I mess something up? The [reply] buttons are there but clicking them does nothing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not just you. I'm having the same issue on your talk page (possibly just your talk page specifically since I'm using the reply tool to reply to you here). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 Works for me — xaosflux Talk 00:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The reply tool currently fails on pages that contain video or audio embeds (such as your talk page in this section) if you have the "New video player" beta feature enabled. This is a known issue and it should be fixed soon: T301427. Matma Rex talk 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks Matma Rex! And thanks to Blaze Wolf and Xaosflux as well. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: thanks for the note, FYI: It also fails for me if trying to reply to that section, even without that beta player. And once it fails, it fails for the rest of the page until a reload. — xaosflux Talk 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
phab:T302296 opened for the non-beta version of this failing. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool configuration[edit]

Hello, it would be very useful if we were able to change some parts of the reply tool such as the pinging function. For example, I find it useful to have a dropdown, however I prefer using {{re}} instead of @[[User:<user>]]. Additionally, would it be possible to add a preload to the reply tool like Enterprisey's reply tool? Thank you! ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Where would you want this "preload" to come from? Also note: the "reply function" doesn't work at all in "source" mode, which could be nice. These do seem more like "feature requests" though, so shouldn't block roll outs. — xaosflux Talk 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux, if you get this ping, then the "Mention a user" button and keyboard shortcut works in source mode. (Do you have the toolbar turned off?) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF) - ahh ok, I had to also opt-in to Enable editing tools in source mode in preferences; thanks! — xaosflux Talk 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sportzpikachu the @USER<user> option is much more sustainable, local templates can come and go. — xaosflux Talk 22:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Toggle having a signature in reply tool[edit]

As of now, the reply tool automatically adds a signature to posts, but this can cause issues when using subst templates that add a signature already. An example is Template:RMassist. Maybe there could be a way to toggle it on and off? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this is similar to the one below, personally I think the best solution is to "not autosign" if signature code is present in the text already. — xaosflux Talk 13:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
see phab:T268558 (my last comment following the merge) for what I think is the bigger issue. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Another approach would be to standardize the templates on never auto-signing. Then editors wouldn't have to look up which template has which behavior each time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If you are suggesting we make a blacklist of autosign templates, per project, that sounds computationally expensive. — xaosflux Talk 20:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Partial signatures[edit]

Hello,

I occasionally use three-tilde signatures (name-only), when the full signature would be either duplicative or obtrusive for the usecase.

However, it seems that if you do a three tilde signature, the reply tool will still try to add the full signature. I'll demonstrate below this. It would be best if the auto-sign disabled if any form of signature generated by tildes was used. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate signature example Nosebagbear (talk) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
see phab:T268558 (my last comment following the merge) for what I think is the bigger issue. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
To do this, the tool would have to be able to reliably differentiate between adding a link to your username for some other reason ("Just go to WhatamIdoing and scroll down about halfway to read about that and which") and a partial signature, which is difficult. When you don't want a quick, simple, standard, pre-indented auto-signing tool, then just use the [edit source] button instead of the [reply] button. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF) wouldn't something like "if the input text has the ~~~, ~~~~, or ~~~~~ magic words in it, don't autosign"? The tool seems to be fine knowing if these are present, as the live preview output shows them. — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
That would work, as would a simple checkbox saying "don't auto-sign this comment". If you want to create a link to your userpage, just write [[user:Thryduulf|]], yes it's a few keystrokes more, but it doesn't confuse software. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps some "suppress autosign" button would be more than enough? — xaosflux Talk 00:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer the magic word detection/removal, as well as a suppress autosign, given the choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It's been about a year since I asked about this, but I believe that the explanation for why that isn't as simple or reliable as it seems like it should be involved the words "pre-save transformation". It might be possible, but it might not be proportionate effort for the small benefit. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A "DO NOT Auto sign" button (perhaps in Advanced) shouldn't have that problem. — xaosflux Talk 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
True. On the other hand, at what point does cramming in all the features we want tip this away from "simple, lightweight tool for quick replies (use the [edit] button if you want to do something complicated)" into a tool that can do anything but which is no longer simple, lightweight, or quick? There's always room for me to put one more cow on the commons, but if we all do that... Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure the good balancing point, personally think I'd rather have "sig is already there, don't add it" then more UI elements to turn it off. As far as the tipping point- we are about to put (on some pages) hundreds or more links to this tool on pages. Putting the sig in "for you" is already new functionality being added (vs just clicking edit), so looking at the sig specific components seems worthwhile. — xaosflux Talk 21:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
hi @Nosebagbear – are you able to share a link to a comment where a ... full signature would be either duplicative or obtrusive for the usecase. ?
...I ask the above in an effort to form a clearer image in my mind for the kind of scenario that, I assume, prompted you to raise this issue here and @Thryduulf to raise a similar issue in phab:T278357... PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't recall any specific situations off the top of my head, my experience over the years is that they are rare but they do exist. Searching project space for sign with three tildes finds mainly lists of participants in WikiProjects/attendees at meetups/events and similar.
Wikipedia:Third opinion/Instructions explicitly instructs to use five tildes, WP:TALK#REVISE notes "Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g., ; edited ~~~~~, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.", although in practice most editors who note a correction/amendment to their comment do so with four tildes.
As I noted in phab:T278357 though by far the most common uses of three and five tildes are typos for four (as at Special:Diff/1072386554). The cases when tildes other than four are intentionally desired are rare enough that needing to explicitly request the software not auto-add your signature (which will be of benefit in other scenarios too) is no burden. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
ps: I just now recall that, several years ago, there was some reason (possibly humour) why I wanted my signature to display as something other than "Thryduulf" and so typed [[user:Thryduulf|foo]] ~~~~~. An even hazier recollection is of wanting something (no idea what) to display between by username and signature, resulting in ~~~ foo ~~~~~. If there have been five instances of my doing this since I got here in December 2004 I would be surprised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer-me has been dubious about the advice in WP:TALK#REVISE, which is rarely followed and sometimes annoying. But even if you wanted to follow it, you can't make that kind of edit in the [reply] tool anyway. Ditto for adding your username to a list of participants/attendees.
Five tildes are sometimes wanted for starting RFCs (to have an RFC question without the posting individual's name), but that usually involves starting a ==New section==, which you can't do with the [reply] button. Five tildes are also used in MassMessage, which again doesn't involve the [reply] button. Usually, if someone adds a comment to an existing section with five tildes, it's a typo. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf the links you shared above were precisely the examples I was seeking...thank you for locating them and sharing them here.
Combining the limited experience/knowledge I have of Wikipedia:Third_opinion/Instructions with the context @Whatamidoing (WMF) shared about Wikipedia:TALK#REVISE is leading me to think these are workflows you, and others, do NOT encounter frequently.
As such, I do not think we should consider adding support for partial signatures within the Reply Tool to warrant blocking the opt-out deployment scheduled for 7 March.
On the topic of signature typos, I imagine those will be most common amongst experienced volunteers who I assume will be confident using the source editor to make corrections of this sort.
Please let me know if anything in what I shared above prompts new thoughts/questions. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF) While I think dealing with phab:T278357 before the opt-out deployment would be desirable I can't in good faith describe it as essential (I would rank phab:T278355 the same way). The phab tickets don't give me any sense of how much effort would be required to fix them, though. A button or checkbox or something to disable auto-signing for a given post is something that can, imo, wait 1 or 2 releases but shouldn't be something we're still waiting for three or four years from now. Thryduulf (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Having now read phab:T302550 (where I have also commented) I think you've misunderstood the intent of phab:T278357 - it is not about intentional uses of three and five tildes but graceful handling of unintentional ones, which are very significantly more common (they are almost impossible to search for, but I encounter them probably 1-2 times a month on average and I read only a tiny fraction of the discussions) Thryduulf (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflicts[edit]

This will probably get a response of "that's a feature, not a bug", but something I've noticed is that the tool resolves edit conflicts. That's great with high-traffic noticeboards and when the reply that causes the edit conflict is not germane to your conversation, but what's happened with me is that a user makes a comment, I start replying to it, and during that time they alter it or add a supplementary comment, rendering my reply moot. Is there a way of showing the latest revision of the page when edits have happened inbetween the time you loaded it and the time you're about to publish? Example: message, supplement, my reply, not knowing it was moot, response alerting me to the change. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is being worked on at T250295. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I particularly hope people will count the (raw) number of times that this happens to them, and that knowing about other replies would have resulted in a significant change to their comment. I'd love to be able to say with some confidence that this happens to highly active editors "once a week" or "once a month" or whatever. Right now, I can only say that some people have encountered it and mentioned it to me once (ever), and that I personally encounter this problem about once a month (out of hundreds of comments posted each month). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
For clarity, I think the talk pages project has done a great deal of good, especially for our newer editors (I can't count the number of times I've seen errors with indenting and lack of signatures). Resolution of edit conflicts in this manner isn't ideal, but it's still better than not resolving them at all. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, but while the phab task would be the ideal solution, if it can detect something at all, then perhaps adding {{ec}} at the front (even when the edit conflict isn't ultimately relevant) would be a huge (further) mitigation. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Is would be nice if it handles this like CD does, i.e. notifying the user if the page has changed while they were typing, and allowing them to reload the page. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
On a busy page like ANI, I don't think I'd appreciate being notified every time the whole page changed. At most, I think I'd like to be notified if new comments were added in the same section (preferably just to the same comment that I was replying to). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not a very obtrusive notification:
The notification is the +1 on the left.
 ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I concur with regard to (sub)-section - I hadn't thought that awareness of changes to the full page was even being considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Review of Outstanding Reply Tool Issues[edit]

Hi y'all – two things:

  1. Thank you @Blaze Wolf, @Nick Moyes, @Nosebagbear, @Sdrqaz, @Qwerfjkl,@Thryduulf, @Usedtobecool, @Xaosflux, and @Zxcvbnm for coming here to report the issues you've noticed in the Reply Tool.
  2. Earlier today the Editing Team completed a review of, what we understand to be, the main issues you, and other volunteers at en.wiki, have experienced with the Reply Tool. We did this review to determine which – if any – of these issue we think ought to block the Reply Tool deployment scheduled for 7 March. I've posted the results of this review at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If the results we came to prompt any questions, please let me know.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm attempting to view it but the page keeps loading in a very basic text version. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
See phab:T302550 perhaps. — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Same thing. All of phab is loading in a basic text version. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like you are blocking javascript. — xaosflux Talk 18:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Preload[edit]

@PPelberg (WMF) and Whatamidoing (WMF): Once deployed I'd like to see if we can get our edit request forms to start using this. Open eg [2] in incognito, the "Submit an edit request" link going via the Reply Tool (for new sections) would be neat. Any idea if this is technically possible, and if so what the best technical implementation may be? (we often have issues with people messing up the {{subst:trim}} part for example, so I wonder if we could give instructions in an 'editnotice' or have it prefill the {{edit extended-protected}} template 'behind the scenes' for example). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220227232020/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project

Leave a Reply