Talk:Talk pages project

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

This page is for discussing the Talk pages project. The software interface on this page is Structured Discussions ("Flow"), which is not part of the Talk pages project.

It doesn't work on my talk page...

Piotrus (talkcontribs)
Reply to "It doesn't work on my talk page..."
Sdkb (talkcontribs)

When I tried to use DiscussionTools with {{subst:Please see}}, it signed for me twice. Could this be fixed? It also didn't provide an edit summary because the header is included in the template; resolving that would be good as well.

Piotrus (talkcontribs)

Ah, my question exactly, I also use some templates like this which contain a signature inside - and this gadget signs them again.

I looked and couldn't find the 'don't sign this post' checkbox, which would be a simple workaround (since having the tool figure out which tempaltes should not be signed might be impossible?).

Reply to "Duplicate signature bug"

Tool inserting nowikis into previous sections in visual mode

Ahecht (talkcontribs)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) I just had the tool insert a random <nowiki> onto a talk page, in a section far above the one I was replying to, which messed up the formatting of the whole page. The diff is at, but for some reason, while the <nowiki> shows up in the source of the page and you can see its effect in the preview, the diff doesn't display that line as being changed.

Reply to "Tool inserting nowikis into previous sections in visual mode"
StarshipSLS (talkcontribs)

I think that this is a great tool. It is now so much easier to discuss things on Wikipedia. I kept forgetting to add a signature but when I activated this tool yesterday, talk pages became so easy! I think that it should be now removed from the beta features and be put in the normal experience.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I'm glad that you like it. The numbers from the research project were amazing. I agree with you that the Reply tool is ready to "graduate". However, right now, there's a technical situation with the Parser cache that needs to be solved before the devs will agree to make it more generally available. Even when it's stable, they may want to move slowly after that. I don't know if the English Wikipedia will be high on their list. They might want to do some of the smaller wikis first. (Or, it might go the other way around. This problem is about duplication between users and non-users, so they might decide that it's best to switch the biggest wikis over first. We'll have to wait until they've sorted things out.)

StarshipSLS (talkcontribs)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Ok. Can you please let me know when the issue is fixed? Will the issue affect my responses to talk pages?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you put Talk pages project/Replying on your watchlist, I think you'll get a notification every tine someone starts a new thread on its talk page, which means you should see any big announcements from Peter (the product manager). But it might be obvious, since the [reply] button will just start showing up everywhere.  :-)

Reply to "Time to remove from Beta"
Xavier Dengra (talkcontribs)


There is no information in the textboxes such as "Help with the translations", or at least not so easy to find for contributors. Where can I find the strings to translate the new features already implemented into Catalan? Thank you!

Patrik L. (talkcontribs)
Xavier Dengra (talkcontribs)

Hey, that's good! Thank you very much @Patrik L.! Sometimes it was not easy for me to track open translations and that will definitely help. Best!

Dyolf77 (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Xavier Dengra (talkcontribs)

Edit summaries include wikitext markup in new section heading links

Summary by JJMC89
Newslinger (talkcontribs)

When using the new discussion feature to create a new section that includes wikitext markup (e.g. links and italics) in the section heading, the resulting edit summary incorrectly includes the markup in the link to the new section.

For example, in en:Special:Diff/1019015313, I created a new section titled Test (italicized), but the resulting edit summary includes a broken section link to ''Test'', with the apostrophes included. This bug also affects links in the new section heading. It does not affect the reply feature.

Here are the results of several tests:

Results of new section tests
DiffNew section nameEdit summary section link
en:Special:Diff/1019015223Another testAnother ''[[test]]''
en:Special:Diff/1019019296Link[[Piped link|link]]
en:Special:Diff/1019016491Another linkAnother [[piped link|link]]

On a general note, I am very impressed with the user experience of the new features from the talk pages project. Keep up the excellent work!

Reply to "Edit summaries include wikitext markup in new section heading links"
Xaosflux (talkcontribs)
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Problem in mobile T280433"

Unwanted nowiki tags

Summary by Whatamidoing (WMF)
Clayoquot (talkcontribs)

Hi. I'm not sure if you've heard this already, but the new tool keeps adding <nowiki> tags when I try to use templates or diffs in a comment. I'm going to go back to Enterprisey's Reply-link tool until this issue is fixed.

Matěj Suchánek (talkcontribs)

You probably have to switch from Visual mode to Source mode.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Templates are disabled in the visual mode because @Lofhi discovered that multi-line templates (such as an infobox) make a mess. You can paste the wikitext code for a template into the visual mode, and it will interpret that as wikitext, but just typing it out will be escaped. This is handy if I want to tell you to type {{thank you}} but not when I actually want to say Thank you.

Templates will be re-enabled for the visual mode after the technical RFC about how wikitext handles multi-line comments is resolved. In the meantime, as Matěj Suchánek says, you can type templates in the wikitext source mode.

Stjn (talkcontribs)

But why was inserting multi-line templates a problem? It seems to me that the fact that DiscussionTools inserts : too liberally is what was the main issue in that task, not the fact that you could insert templates via visual mode. Ideally, DiscussionTool should leverage Parsoid (since it uses it) or some other programming magic to stop inserting sequences of : in parameters and closing brackets, since that was what breaking the code in the first place.

For example, this (adapted from one of their place) is perfectly functioning wikitext right now, without multi-line comments:

::::::::::Weird test:
::::::::::{{Graphique polygonal
| pas_grille_principale = 10
| nb_abscisses = 10
| y_max = 11
| S01V01 = 2200
| lb_x1 = 1
| nb_series = 1
:::::::::[[Category:Page utilisant une frise chronologique]] [[Utilisateur:Lofhi|Lo<i>fhi</i>]] ([[Discussion Utilisateur:Lofhi|me contacter]]) 26 mai 2020 à 18:31 (CEST)

Seems wrong that the chosen route for this was ‘disable multi-line template insertion’ instead of ‘fix how DiscussionTools handles multi-line template invocations’. There are perfectly reasonable use cases where one would want to use wikitext like that, IMO.

Clayoquot (talkcontribs)

Thanks! I eventually found the Source mode and it works well. It would be nice if the editor could detect that you're probably trying to add a template or external link, and ask you if you want to switch to Source mode.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

You can add external links in the visual mode.

I'll file a request for a note about switching to Source mode. That's a good idea.

Pelagic (talkcontribs)

Ideally, there would be a way to tag templates as having output that is line-break-safe &/or block-element-safe. This might be useful in other contexts, not just ReplyTool. (Note, this is distinct from Stjn's example above where the template input in source mode is multi-line.)

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Getting templates is stalled on making a change (addinig extra syntax) to wikitext, which is blocked on officially starting the technical RFC process. It might be easier just to get that over with than to identify the safe templates.

Reply to "Unwanted nowiki tags"

Option to remove sig at end?

Summary by Whatamidoing (WMF)
Tenryuu (talkcontribs)

I've been trying this beta feature for a while now on the English Wikipedia, and I like it. There's one feature that I hope can be reworked. Currently, posting a comment will insert the user's signature at the very end, which is useful for those of us who forget. That being said, there are times where having the signature at the very end isn't wanted, such as using a {{reftalk}} template at the very end. Could this be overridden by inserting four tildes in the comment and have the signature render there and not at the end?

ETA: I also notice that there are some issues with certain templates that has their transclusion break with indenting, like reftalk. Perhaps an option to remove indents could be considered?

Reply to "Option to remove sig at end?"
Aschmidt (talkcontribs)

You might like to know that when I just did this edit, discussion tool failed to include the correct number of colons for indenting my answer.

Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

This occurred because the first comment in that section has an invalid signature (it doesn't link to the user page), causing it not to be detected, and thus causing the indentation of the other comment to be detected incorrectly.

Aschmidt (talkcontribs)

I see. Thanks for explaining – albeit that it is allowed to have such a signature, at least on dewiki. But now we know what needs to be improved in the tool.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

As a result of the New requirements for user signatures, that style of signature will (eventually, maybe next year) be disallowed by the software. You won't be required to have a link specifically to the User: page, but every user will need to have one (direct) link to the account.

Aschmidt (talkcontribs)

Thanks for explaining. I see. So, you'll probably not fix this problem because it does not need to be addressed any more.

Reply to "Wrong depth of indentation"