Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/08

The team would value any thoughts and/or questions you have about this new tool for Replying to specific comments on talk pages.

Hide mentions

Hello, would it be possible to hide mentions? Template at Czech Wikipedia (and probably other templates) can hide mentions using param "skrýt=ano" ("hide=yes"). See example. Hiding is used for clarity of (long) discussion. What do you think? Thanks a lot for your work. Patrik L. (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template uses <span style="display:none">example</span> Patrik L. (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@ESanders (WMF) Ping (leader). Patrik L. (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Two cents from the feature author. I regret implementing this feature back then (though I just streamlined what I saw done by hand elsewhere). Receiving a hidden ping from a discussion always confuses me and it takes some time just to locate its source, especially when the discussion is long and I wasn't following it.

For reference, enwiki has a separate template for this. There is a note on using with caution.

As I wrote in Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/07#h-Notifications-2020-07-08T09:05:00.000Z, DiscussionTools are a good opportunity to change the whole concept of notifications and replace the "mention" feature which is full of bugs. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is helpful context, @Matěj Suchánek; thank you for sharing it.

You mentioned incorporating hidden mentions after seeing others doing it manually...as part of the implementation process did you come to understand why people were making the effort to "hide" mentions in the first place?

No worries if this information has since escaped you, but if you do remember we would be keen to hear! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I probably believed back then it was "cool" and somewhat improved appearance. But it was in 2013 where we didn't much care about usability. (By the way, enwiki implemented the template in 2017.) Seeing ping at the beginning of each post is indeed very distracting, as well as seeing a series of (long) usernames, that's probably why this feature is still used a lot. But knowing at the first look who was pinged is a useful context, too. Note that when you receive the notification, it shows you come context (text of the reply). But the pings are not hidden there, even if they are hidden using this feature. But you will certainly be doing your own research to find this out (staying tuned). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is great background information – thank you, @Matěj Suchánek.

...when you receive the notification, it shows you come context (text of the reply). But the pings are not hidden there, even if they are hidden using this feature.

The above is a great point, which I understand as: "When many pings are written at the beginning of a comment, it can be difficult for the people receiving the notification for said comment to understand what the comment is about."

So it sounds like there are, potentially, two primary facets to consider:

1. The impact of a comment containing many pings on the people reading said comment's ability to quickly and easily understand the meaning of the conversation
2. The impact of a comment containing many pings on the people receiving a notification about said comment's ability to quickly and easily understand the context of the comment they are being pinged about

As @Whatamidoing (WMF) alluded to here, we will be introducing custom edit summaries to the tool [i] which will, as you described, enable people to effectively 'hide" pings from comments.

If you were in the position of devising way(s) of measuring how important it is to address "hidden pings" more directly, what might you pay attention to? No worries if nothing immediately comes to mind...I thought I'd share this question with you in case this is something you'd previously put thought to!

---

i. phab:T249391 PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

When many pings are written at the beginning of a comment, it can be difficult for the people receiving the notification for said comment to understand what the comment is about.

Or how it relates to them.

If you were in the position of devising way(s) of measuring how important it is to address "hidden pings" more directly, what might you pay attention to?

I'm sorry but I wasn't able to make up a meaningful idea about this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Another (a bit newer) feature which allows moving pings away from the discussion text is "ping from edit summary" [1]. But DiscussionTools (for now?) don't allow specifying a custom summary. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We will be looking into notifications in the coming months, both ping-based and other types (e.g. thread watching). Thanks for bringing hidden pings to our attention, we will factor this into our conversations. What is this typical use case for this? Pinging a long list of users?

cc @PPelberg (WMF) ESanders (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pinging a long lis of user or a lucidity of discussion. Patrik L. (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

For example this pings should be hided. Patrik L. (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Ed.

@Patriccck, we're glad you brought this up; it's helpful to be able to see the edit [i] that inspired you to share this feedback.

A follow up question for you: Who do you think will be impacted by a comment that mentions ~9 other people [i]? And how do you think they will be impacted?

Are you thinking it will be difficult for those 9 people to understand why you are drawing their attention to this particular conversation? Are you thinking that the people who happen upon this conversation will have a difficult time understanding what is being discussed? Something else?

...I ask the above in an effort to make sure I'm accurately understanding what's prompting you to suggest introducing the ability for mentions to be hidden.

---

i. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie:Pod_l%C3%ADpou#Nov%C3%A9_diskusn%C3%AD_n%C3%A1stroje_budou_nasazeny_na_%C4%8Desk%C3%A9_Wikipedii PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF)

I think hiding a mention is quite common. Hiding mentions may be useful to make the discussion less messy. For example, mentions of newly invited users (for example, technically proficient ones) are usually hidden. Patrik L. (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Understood - thank you for sharing this context, @Patriccck.

I shared, what I understand to be, the core elements of the points you and @Matěj Suchánek raised in the comment here – please let me know if anything there prompts new thoughts or questions. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Matěj Suchánek's idea of "hiding" pings by putting them in edit summaries is a good one. Custom edit summaries will happen, but separately from that, the team had talked about using edit summaries as a way to ping people outside the text. Imagine that you reply to me, and there's a "☑︎ Notify WhatamIdoing" checkbox available to you (preferably unchecked by default). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) Yes, it is a good idea ("Imagine that you reply to me, and there's a "☑︎ Notify WhatamIdoing" checkbox available to you (preferably unchecked by default)". Patrik L. (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsigned

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

---

How do I reply to a comment that a participant forgot to sign? Usually another participant adds a template "unsigned", but no "reply" link appears after comment with that template. How to make a forgotten participant's signature so that the extension works with his comment? Sunpriat 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments should be automatically signed, either with username if logged in, or with IP address if logged out. I don't think it will be possible to not sign. Pbsouthwood (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the great things about Extension:DiscussionTools in that one no longer needs to sign their posts. Their username and timestamp are automatically added to the top left and bottom right corners, respectively. Indeed, the challenge now will be convincing trained users not to add ~~~~ to their posts that use this extension.

Edit: I may have just found a bug in visual editing mode...the <code></code> tags were automatically enclosed within, not outside of the <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Also, as I'm typing this in "source editing" mode, this is more of a UI bug, but my typed text is overlapping the small font instructions, which is also displayed in only raw HTML. Dmehus (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I may have just found a bug in visual editing mode...the <code></code> tags were automatically enclosed within, not outside of the <nowiki></nowiki> tags.

I filed a task T259729 about this, although it didn't happen for me when I tried. If you find a way to consistently cause this problem, please let us know!

Also, as I'm typing this in "source editing" mode, this is more of a UI bug, but my typed text is overlapping the small font instructions, which is also displayed in only raw HTML.

This is already reported here: T259565#6358812 Matma Rex (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding ~~~~ where it is not necessary is not a big problem. It can be removed if you want. Come to think of it, how will the software respond to it? Would it be rendered as a signature, displayed as typed, or ignored as if a comment? Pbsouthwood (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I haven't tested it with DiscussionTools, but in Flow, it wraps the signature in the nowiki tags. Let's test it. Dmehus (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good, it does render it as a signature. So no issues here. I personally prefer not using a a signature, but it's good that it accepts the signature normally. Dmehus (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding "unsigned" templates should work (reply links should be added to them), but only if that template also includes the date and time, not just the username. Matma Rex (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank. I forgot to check this option. Sunpriat 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: Yeah, that would be a good reason for adding {{Unsigned }} or to signing one's posts normally, but longer term, as DiscussionTools rolls out universally, I'm hopeful that the archiving bots' code will be updated to recognize the hard coded timestamps from DiscussionTools first and, where DiscussionTools isn't used in that namespace, then the signature timestamps. Dmehus (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copying

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T260072

Hello, @ESanders (WMF) try to copy comment from Kacir, 30. 7. 2020, 21:48 (CEST) at Czech Wikipedia using triple click. Why is "J" from Chrzwzcz’s comment selected? See screenshot. (Windows 7, Google Chrome) Patrik L. (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've filed a task for the team to look at. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. Patrik L. (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The reply link cannot be used

Hello, I cannot reply this post. I tried it with IE 11 and Chrome 84. The error message is: "The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source"." @ESanders (WMF): ping. David V. (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The reply tool can not currently be used to reply to comments which are generated by a template. See Help:DiscussionTools/Why can't I reply to this comment?#Comments in template arguments. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Error in embedded pages

Hello, @ESanders (WMF) and others, please try to reply to any comment in the Hana Krampolová section. I cannot reply in that section. Then scroll down and try reply to any comment in sections Rajlichova hypotéza or Seznam německých dokumentárních cyklů. I can reply there. I tried it in Chrome, Windows 7. Where is the problem? Patrik L. (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a bug in Parsoid to me. I filed a task with some initial investigation: T260550. Matma Rex (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I am not very good in tasks at Phabricator. Patrik L. (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T249391

It would be great if the "Edit summary", was made editable. Right now it automatically adds "Svar" (="answer") in Swedish. That could still be default, just possible to edit. LittleGun (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. This is planned. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you LittleGun (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Now it works. Thank you! LittleGun (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit own comment

I really like the feature, mostly because you do not need to scroll to nearest edit button to reply a comment.

Quite often I realize I made a minor error in my own comment after publishing, so to avoid the scrolling to closest "edit-button" and then back down, an edit button at your own signature, next to answer, for your own comment would be great. LittleGun (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

hi @LittleGun – we appreciate you trying the Reply Tool and coming here to share feedback! Some comments in response below...

I realize I made a minor error in my own comment after publishing, so to avoid the scrolling to closest "edit-button" and then back down, an edit button at your own signature, next to answer, for your own comment would be great.

We empathize with the scenario you described above.

In fact, we investigated implementing the ability to edit specific comments. Although, it is not technically feasible at this time [i]. If you are interested in knowing if/when these technical challenges are resolved, you might subscribe to this Phabricator ticket: T245225.

I really like the feature, mostly because you do not need to scroll to nearest edit button to reply a comment.

This is great to hear. We hope you will continue to post [ii] when you notice things that could be improved about the tool.

---

i. https://w.wiki/aSK

ii. https://w.wiki/aSL PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. LittleGun (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Prototype: custom edit summaries

Phab:T249391: Add support for customizing edit summaries for comments posted using Reply tool

Phab:T261539: Make it easy for editors to customize the edit summary of each comment they post

Phab:T261908: Make the custom edit summary functionality more discoverable

Inspired by the feedback people have shared here [i][ii][iii][iv], the Reply Tool will soon offer people the ability to customize the edit summaries that accompany comments posted with it.

As part of implementing the custom edit summary functionality, we've created a technical prototype that we would value you experimenting with and sharing the thoughts and questions it brings to mind. More details below.

Link to prototype

https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/23fd7e0b373b74aceaf8ddec1d82ab09/w/index.php/Talk:Main_Page

Note: the link above will take you to a test wiki. The content you post there will not be published on any production wiki. You can use the wiki while logged out or you can create an account with whatever username you would like.

Testing instructions

To test the Reply Tool with custom edit summary functionality implemented, please follow these steps:

1. Visit this link on a desktop: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/23fd7e0b373b74aceaf8ddec1d82ab09/w/index.php/Talk:Main_Page
2. Click any [ reply ] link that appears on the page
3. That's it! [vi]

Sharing feedback

We are curious to whatever comments/thoughts come to mind as you are using the prototype.

Please note: the prototype linked above implements, what we currently understand to be, the core custom edit summary functionality. It intentionally is not opinionated about interface polish/presentation.

---

i. Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/06#h-Does_not_show_or_offer_to_change_the_edit_summary-2020-06-01T16:30:00.000Z

ii. Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/06#h-V2_Feedback:_Pelagic-2020-06-02T21:57:00.000Z

iii. Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/07#h-Allow_to_change_edit_summary-2020-07-17T15:44:00.000Z

iv. https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATalk%20pages%20project/Replying/2020/04#c-Ad_Huikeshoven-2020-04-12T07%3A31%3A00.000Z-PPelberg_%28WMF%29-2020-04-04T00%3A15%3A00.000Z

v. Talk:Talk pages project/Replying/2020/08#h-Edit_summary-2020-08-23T18:54:00.000Z

vi. We've intentionally NOT shared how exactly to access the custom edit summary functionality PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the following people specifically as y'all have previously talked about the custom edit summary functionality: @Geraki, @Gryllida, @Mar(c), @Pelagic, @LittleGun, @Ad Huikeshoven, @MarcoAurelio, @Matěj Suchánek,@Patriccck PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi.

• The "advanced" label does not make clear about the feature that it enables. Why not just "edit summary"? (unless you intent to put more under there)
• I prefer it to be opt-out than opt-in.
• It does not stay enabled, you must press "advanced" on every reply. Geraki (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Geraki, at all points

I guess "advanced" will be filled wit other settings, but I think edit summary can be open per default, or at least have its own link.

Once opened it was really good. Intuitative and discreet. LittleGun (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Geraki, at all points and with LittleGun. Opt-out would be great. And what about opt-in for all wikis? Patrik L. (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And what about opt-in for all wikis?

@Patriccck, can you elaborate? In this context, are you asking a question like, "Why isn't the Reply Tool available as an opt-in feature at all wikis?" PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, @PPelberg (WMF). I think, that now can be Reply tool avabile at all wikis as opt-in. Patrik L. (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Advanced" menu also contains the "Watch this page" checkbox in this prototype (which is only available when you're logged in). Matma Rex (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geraki, @LittleGun and @Patriccck, this is great feedback; thank you for writing back so quickly. A couple responses to the comments y'all shared and a resulting question below.

===Questions===

It does not stay enabled, you must press "advanced" on every reply.

@Geraki, @LittleGun and @Patriccck: can you say more here? How did you expect the tool to behave?

===Responses to comments===

The "advanced" label does not make clear about the feature that it enables.

I agree with the above. With this said, we think it is reasonable to assume the following: People expecting to customize the edit summary/commit message that accompanies the comment they are writing will be likely to look around the tool, notice the "Advanced" link and become curious enough to click it and ultimately discover the edit summary functionality.

If you see faults in this logic, we'd be keen to hear.

Note: we shared this thinking in a bit more detail on Phabricator here: T249391#6361753.

Why not just "edit summary"? (unless you intent to put more under there)

As @Matma Rex mentioned, the link is titled "Advanced" because it contains other functionality besdies the custom summary field.

I prefer it to be opt-out than opt-in.

If It would be accurate for me to understand that by "opt-out" you mean you think the edit summary functionality should be visible to all users by default, then a couple of thoughts:

• We do not see authoring a "custom" edit summary as a required part of the commenting experience
• As such, we do not think exposing this functionality to all users by default is worth the confusion it could lead newer contributors to experience. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you say more here? How did you expect the tool to behave?

I think, that great would be button "Show field for edit summary every time" or settings icon in the Reply tool or in user preferences. Some users probably could want use custom edit summary every time and this could save unnecessary extra clicks on "Advanced". Patrik L. (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this, @Patriccck. I've created a task for us to talk about how this might be implemented: T261539.

Note: I created a new task for this rather than incorporating it into the original task (T249391) because doing so will help us get the baseline functionality deployed more quickly. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by "edit summary" described as "advanced" (feature) as well. In the usual context of edit summary, it is one of the basic features users are taught to use at the beginning of their on-wiki experience. (Same with "watch this page".) However:

We do not see authoring a "custom" edit summary as a required part of the commenting experience
As such, we do not think exposing this functionality to all users by default is worth the confusion it could lead newer contributors to experience.

I'm fine with this reasoning. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We appreciate you trusting this logic. Let's see what happens. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this reasoning.

I agree. Patrik L. (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you say more here? How did you expect the tool to behave?

(I am sorry, I do not understand how you get the green highlight; Patriccck fixed)

I do see edit summary as part of the commenting experience. So what I expected was to see it open and editable beneath the comment edit area.

But maybe I am wrong, and it is confusing to beginners.

Still, I would like it being a separate link "Open edit summary" when not visible, and "close edit summary" visible. Not under advanced. I also would like to be able to "pin it", making it always visible as an personal customization.

But the most important thing is to have it at all. To me it is worth a few clicks to change the edit summary. LittleGun (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But maybe...it is confusing to beginners.

We appreciate you being open to experimenting. We could be wrong as well. I like that we're trying something and learning together.

I also would like to be able to "pin it", making it always visible as an personal customization.

Understood. Here is the task where we will think about this functionality: phab:T261539.

I would like it being a separate link "Open edit summary" when not visible, and "close edit summary" visible. Not under advanced

After deploying this functionality, it could turn out that people seeking to customize the edit summary that accompanies the comment they are writing do *not* engage with the "Advanced" link.

If this ends up being true, we ought to prioritize making it easier for people to discover this functionality. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@LittleGun Just use {{Tq|1=example}} for the green highlight. Patrik L. (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If there's disagreement about whether "Advanced" conveys the right impression, how about "More"? Pelagic (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Better. Maybe advanced is a better wording för future features. Currently "more" is a good suggestion. 78.77.198.146 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

IP was me logged out. Sorry. LittleGun (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Czech Wikipedia: Advanced user (sysop) didn't know that he can add custom summary because of "hided" field. And I agree with him, it isn't easy to find it. Patrik L. (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This user use custom edit summaries because of some "jokes, hints and pings" as he wrote. He also wrote: "I can't do it there [using Discussion tools]". Patrik L. (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is also wanted by more people at Swedish Wikipedia, and one who like to remove edit summarie completely from discussions. As the discussion should speak for itself. But I do not think that is the reason to hide edit summary in advanced.

There can also be found code for expanding edit summary. Code was created by user Nirmos. I use that and really like it. Here is the link to discussion and code:

Svara-funktionen "Diskussionsverktygs" redigeringskommentar LittleGun (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@LittleGun, @Patriccck and @Pelagic: thank you for adding this feedback here and sharing what people are saying on your home wikis.

I've add these comments to the description of the ticket where we're we'll consider making the Comment summary functionality more discoverable: T261908.

I should note: we have not yet planned to prioritize work on this. Reason being: we'd like to minimize the likelihood that the affordance could become a distraction to Junior Contributors and we are assuming that Senior Contributors will discover the functionality, be it on their own or through talking to peers on-wiki as seems to be happening to some extent now.

With all of the above said, we hear you ^[1] that once you do discover the Comment summary functionality, it can be annoying to have to click Advanced with each use to reveal it. It's with this in mind that in the next couple of weeks you'll notice that the Reply Tool will "remember" whether you want the Advanced "shelf" open or not each time you use the tool. The work to implement this will happen in this ticket: T261539. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Great! I would prefer to actively set it, like "pinning". But that may be a generation thing. LittleGun (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It works now! Great!

The parrot inside me:

Still, I do not like that it is hidden under "Advanced ⯆" menue. I think there should be a menue of itself "Edit summary ⯆", and that "Advanced ⯆" should be used for for truly advanced functions.

But I do not know how to convince anyone that giving edit summary is part of wikipedia communication, including in discussion. It is three things that triggers me to go to a discussion page from Recent Changes: The article's subject, the editor, the edit comment. When it just says "Answer"is just irritating. LittleGun (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)