Talk:Talk pages project/replying

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

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

Out of order reply

29
Summary by Whatamidoing (WMF)
Mannivu (talkcontribs)

Not sure if this is the correct way to say it, but if a user doesn't reply to the last comment, the reply should be displayed right below the comment replied.

e.g.

First comment

Second comment
Third comment
Fourth comment
Fifth comment

If I reply to the second one, my reply should be right below the third comment, not after the fourth with the indentation of the third comment. So, at the moment the system works like this:

First comment

Second comment
Third comment
Fourth comment
Fifth comment
Reply to second comment

But it should work like this

First comment

Second comment
Third comment
Reply to second comment
Fourth comment
Fifth comment
He7d3r (talkcontribs)

As far as I know this is the expected behaviour:

Comment

Reply to comment
Reply to "Reply to comment"
Reply to 'Reply to "Reply to comment"'
Reply to `Reply to 'Reply to "Reply to comment"'`
Another reply to "Reply to comment"

See also: w:en:Help:Talk pages#Indentation

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

On itwiki we use a different system: the reply goes right under the comment the user replies to and he must use the Template:Fuori_crono. No problem on the template (the user can add it while replying), but the order of the comments is important for us.

J. N. Squire (talkcontribs)

The expected behavior described by Mannivu is also the one used on the Wikipedia in French (for example on Le Bistro talk space).

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Can you all tell me what you expect? Imagine that I begin with this discussion:

One
Two
Three
Four

I want to reply to "Two". My comment will be "Five".

Please tell me where you think "Five" should be placed. For example, tell me that it belongs 'at the end, with three colons' or 'between Two and Three, with four colons', or whatever you want.

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

On itwiki it should be between Three and Four, with the same amount of colons of Three. So like

One
Two
Three
Five
Four
The222anonim (talkcontribs)

i guess you should replace 'five' with 'four' here ;)

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

No, Four is a reply to Three, so its position is correct in that position.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

But now it looks like Four is a reply to Five.

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

Yes, but that's why we have the in itwiki.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

At itwiki, you want earlier comments ("Four") to look like they are replies to later comments ("Five")?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Imagine that it's not numbers. Imagine that it says:

One. There is a problem here.

Two. I agree.
Three. We should fix the sources. I think we should use Big Newspaper.
Four. I agree with you. That's a good source.

"Five" is now going to say "Five. I think we should use Bad Source."

Question 1: Do you truly want "Four. I agree with you. That's a good source" to be right after the comment suggesting Bad Source? How are you supposed to know what Four was a reply to?


Question 2: Let's imagine that this conversation happened in a slightly different order. Let's imagine that it begins like this:

One. There is a problem here.

Two. I agree.
Three. We should fix the sources. I think we should use Big Newspaper.
Four. I think we should use Bad Source.

You are going to add comment #5. Your comment will say "I agree with you. That's a good source." You want to agree with comment Three, about Big Newspaper. Where does your comment belong?

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

Question 1: we have the template "Fuori crono" exactly for this case: it warn the user that comment "Five. I think we should use Bad Source" was added after "Four. I agree with you. That's a good source."

Question 2: in this case, #5 should be placed right after #3, so

One. There is a problem here.

Two. I agree.
Three. We should fix the sources. I think we should use Big Newspaper.
Five. I agree with you. That's a good source.
Four. I think we should use Bad Source.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

With this example, I think that a sensible conversation reads like this:

There is a problem here.

I agree.
We should fix the sources. I think we should use Big Newspaper.
I agree with you. That's a good source.
I think we should use Bad Source.

and I don't think that this is a sensible conversation:

There is a problem here.

I agree.
We should fix the sources. I think we should use Big Newspaper.
[out of order] I think we should use Bad Source.
I agree with you. That's a good source.
He7d3r (talkcontribs)

In that case, where would someone else reply "Six" to the comment "Three"?

Mannivu (talkcontribs)
One
Two
Three
Five
Six
Four

EDIT: sorry, I misread your comment

This post was hidden by Mannivu (history)
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Mannivu (talkcontribs)

That flow would work if discussions had grey outlines like in this and that thread. But on wikis those lines are not present, so having different answers scattered might be quite confusing.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Have you seen the blue lines that the French Wikipedia uses?

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

I see that frwiki uses yellow boxes to "enclose" replies, but not every language edition uses this tipe of discussion flow. On itwiki we don't have any visual help to follow discussions.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Do you think it would be helpful?

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

If the Reply tool's behaviour won't be changed, it would be helpful. Or people would simply fix their reply in the wikicode.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

hi @Mannivu – you can expect a response from me this week about how we are thinking about the tool in light of what you are raising here.

Mannivu (talkcontribs)

Thank you :D

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

hi @Mannivu – we appreciate you continuing to engage here and demonstrate how you think the Reply Tool ought to behave at Italian Wikipedia.

Before talking about how, if at all, the Reply Tool's behavior could be adapted to work in the way you are describing, I'd like to better understand what's contributed to you starting this conversation.

With the above in mind, below are a couple of "Questions" for you. Please let me know if you think anything here could be made more clear.


Questions

  1. Can you please share links to a diffs on it.wikipedia where you see people commenting on talk pages in the way you are describing here? [i]
  2. Can you please share links to the policies/guidelines at it.wiki that are leading you to say this: ...if a user doesn't reply to the last comment, the reply should be displayed right below the comment replied.? [ii]


---

i. I checked a few pages and didn't immediately notice people using this convention.[1][2][3][4]

ii. Aiuto:Glossario#Fuori_crono : the "out of time" convention and template ({{fc}}), to me, seems to be intended for special cases where people are needing/wanting to interrupt the expected order of comments rather than the way people are expected to comment on talk pages in most cases.

Mannivu (talkcontribs)
  1. See for example in it:Discussione:Fær_Øer#Tabella riepilogativa or it:Discussioni_categoria:Personaggi_dei_fumetti: there's an "out of time" reply and then the replies to that
  2. There's no real guidelines, there's just a common knowledge that if a user needs to reply to a comment that isn't the last comment of the discussion, he should use the "Fuori crono" template. Bear in mind that usually on itwiki we don't indent the comments based on who we are replying to: we just increment the indentation and say "I agree with".
PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

These links and context about the origins of this convention are helpful – thank you for sharing them, @Mannivu.

In response, I'd like to share three things:

I. How we currently understand this situation (please let me know if you're seeing something that I have not included.)

II. The path forward I think we should try taking in response to this "situation."

III. The resulting question for you.

I. Situation

  1. At it.wiki, conventions state:
    1. "Each new post should be inserted at the bottom of the current discussion, so that the discussion is automatically organized in chronological order, from the oldest to the most recent." | source
    2. "Sometimes it may happen that you want to insert a comment that does not follow the chronological order of the interventions. This is an accepted possibility on Wikipedia, but avoid abusing it! Too many out-of-time comments make retrospective reading of a discussion page more difficult." | source
  2. If we assume the conventions at it.wiki (noted above) are widely understood and observed, we can assume people participating in conversations with the Reply Tool will do so in an expected way. Read: they will know to click the bottom-most reply link and in doing so, their comment will be added beneath it and one level of indentation deeper.
  3. In cases where someone is wanting to defy convention, and insert a comment that is "out of order" they are supposed to use the out of order template ({{Fc}}), introduced in 2008 [i], to indicate as much which the Reply Tool does not support.
  4. For people at it.wiki who: A) are wanting to post an "out of order" reply using the Reply Tool and B) are aware of the "out of order" convention, they can use the ({{Fc}}) template by inserting it in the Reply Tool's source mode. Note: it is not yet clear whether this is intuitive.
  5. For people at it.wiki who: A) are wanting to post an "out of order" reply using the Reply Tool and B) are not aware of the "out of order" convention, they may end up commenting in what some people would consider to be "out of order" without taking the recommended steps (e.g. adding {{Fc}}) to do so. Note: it is not yet clear if/when this is happening.

II. Path forward

Considering "2)" and "3)", in the near-term, I think we should:

  • Keep the Reply Tool's behavior as it is.
  • Commit to investigating the extent to which "4)" and "5)" are happening once more people have tried the Reply Tool at it.wikipedia [ii].

III. Question

Assuming all of the above sounds good to you, when do you think might be good for us to check back in about "4)" and "5)"?

One idea: we could check in on this when one these things happens: A) we are considering offering the Reply Tool by default at it.wiki or B) after 100 different people at it.wiki have used the Reply Tool at least once.

Note

I want to recognize, what I understand to be a core part of the concern you are raising here, @Mannivu: new tools, especially communication tools, have the potential to impact the culture of a community. We, the Editing Team, appreciate this and hope that together with you, other volunteers at it.wiki and volunteers other projects, can work together to monitor these potential changes and ensure they sum to newcomers having the know-how and confidence to participate productively in the conversations that make and shape our projects and connect the people who work on them.


---

i. https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aiuto:Glossario&type=revision&diff=15945660&oldid=15944215&diffmode=source

ii. Currently, it looks like 20 people at it.wiki have tried the Reply Tool, eight of which have used it to post one comment. See: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/49478.

Reply to "Out of order reply"

Mobile interface (on desktop/tablet)

5
Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Not top priority, but just a note that this could be useful to implement in the mobile interface as well. I often read medium length talkpages in via en.m.wikipedia.org even on my desktop, since I find that interface cleaner. The [reply] function would be a perfect feature for that if implementable.

Zblace (talkcontribs)

+1

I agree. Same here.

Geraki (talkcontribs)
Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

@Geraki To clarify, that's a completely unrelated feature implemented in MobileFrontend, and it works differently (it always adds your reply at the end of the section, with no indentation).

We definitely want to have our reply tool enabled on mobile at some point, and it is definitely possible to do that, but we haven't though about the interface yet (and about how to integrate it with the existing mobile interface for reading discussions, visible in Geraki's screenshot, which works differently than the normal view).

Geraki (talkcontribs)

TBH I like that impementation more that the Reply tool. As I have expressed (and individually others have expressed the same need), most posts in a discussion/section not need to be indented and just put in the end of the section (not replying to a specific user/post).

Reply to "Mobile interface (on desktop/tablet)"
Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

I think it is better that we can insert ping for the user who will replied.

How do you think:

  • User will be able to toggle whether ping will be inserted.
  • If user toggle it on, @[[User:(user who will replied)|(user who will replied)]]: will be inserted as ping.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The team has been thinking about a check box (toggle on if you want to ping) for a user, but without needing the name to show in the message content. It would work something like pinging someone in an edit summary now (they get pinged, but the message doesn't say "@You The answer is 42"; it just says "The answer is 42".) Do you think that would meet your goal?

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

I see. So if do that, user will be able to ping the user who will be replied without a link to the user page, right? I just wanted that users will be able to get a notification when they are replied, so that's enough. Thank you!

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I just wanted that users will be able to get a notification when they are replied, so that's enough.

hi @Atmark-chan – are you able to share more about what is prompting you to say the above? Are you finding it requires, what you see as, unnecessary effort to remember to insert a ping when Replying to someone? Are you noticing a pattern where people you are responding to are not responding back in a timely fashion? Something else?


Oh, and out of curiosity, what mode of the Reply Tool have you found yourself using most? Source or Visual?

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

@PPelberg (WMF): Yes, I am noticing a pattern where people I am responding to are not sometimes responding back in a timely fashion, so I want to send a notification more easily.

Also, I have used Source mode most.

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

Oh, just now I found a button to mention a user in the Visual mode... I hadn't found it, sorry! But I also want to use it in the Source mode. Can you please do?

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I am noticing a pattern where people I am responding to are not sometimes responding back in a timely fashion, so I want to send a notification more easily.

Got it. Thank you for sharing this additional context.

Oh, just now I found a button to mention a user in the Visual mode... I hadn't found it, sorry!

There's nothing for you to apologize for :) Pinging is functionality we think should be obvious, regardless of the mode you are using.

Can you please do?

Adding an easier way to create pings is something we plan to the Reply Tool's source mode. The Phabricator ticket where we are thinking about is T257391 (I've added the comments you shared here to the ticket as well). As for timing, I do not yet know when exactly this functionality will be added. With this said, we will let you know when it is.

Pinging aside, how have you found using the Reply Tool to be?

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

@PPelberg (WMF):

I've added the comments you shared here to the ticket as well

Thank you for that!

how have you found using the Reply Tool to be?

I've requested to introduce Replying Tool to Japanese Wikivoyage, the wiki I'm active best, in T265829. Also even now I often use it with the PHP parameter dtenable=1.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

Also even now I often use it with the PHP parameter dtenable=1.

You don’t even need that. If you’re comfortable with using the browser command line, you can issue mw.loader.load('ext.discussionTools.init') in the command line and it will be enabled on the given wiki from the next page load on, provided that it’s not available officially (e.g. as a beta feature). You can add this to your global.js as well, but that slows down each page load a little bit, even if the tool isn’t going to be used (e.g. when viewing an article or editing a page).

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

@Tacsipacsi: Only running mw.loader.load('ext.discussionTools.init') in command line loads Discussion Tool any number of times in the wiki. Immediately I've tried that in Japanese Wikivoyage and Meta-Wiki just now.

Oh, As a side note, am I able to turn the loading off?

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)
Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

@Tacsipacsi: Doesn't that mean that users have to:

  1. blank their commons.js and global.js
  2. type mw.cookie.set('discussiontools-tempenable', null); into the console

to turn the loading off? I did that as a test, but the loading seemed not no be turned off.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

@Atmark-chan: It should work, although probably not immediately, only once you reload the page after running the command, just like when turning on.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Atmark-chan, would you please do me a favor? Could you please switch to "visual" mode at the Japanese Wikivoyage, and check that the toolbar is working as you expect, to add links and mention another user? (It's not necessary to post the Reply if you don't want to.) I would be grateful if you could let me know whether it's working as expected, and whether you would recommend any changes to the toolbar (e.g., to remove the italics, which I believe isn't used in Japanese).

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Sorry, but I have a thing to do in the real world now... I'll reply you later.

Reply to "Request about pinging"

Writing a new paragraph in an existing discussion

4
Summary by PPelberg (WMF)

phab:T249886: Create a new workflow for posting a comment w/o indentation

Ladsgroup (talkcontribs)

Hello again. Again this tool is freaking awesome (I'm trying to be professional, otherwise I'd use another word). Even if I want to write one comment in any random wiki, I go to beta features, enable it and then write it. I feel I'm already forgetting how to discuss the old way. One thing, I have seen lots of existing discussion that I want to provide my opinion on and it requires starting a new paragraph in an existing discussion. The case in point I have is when I was asked in my talk page to give my opinion on translation of "Trans women" in Persian and we have a central place to discuss translations. I went there w:fa:Special:PermaLink/30233357#trans woman یا تَرازَن and wanted to add a paragraph saying a translation is better but I didn't want to reply to specific comment. I don't think it would be part of Talk pages project/New discussion but if you think it is. I'm cool with it. I'm more than happy already.

Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

I've actually thought about this, in my mind this is called "adding a top-level comment" (or alternatively, "replying to a heading", as opposed to replying to a comment).

The main challenge here is the interface. I can't think of a good way to add a button that does this, and which both clearly indicates that the new content will be added at the end, and clearly indicates that this is distinct from replying to the last comment in that section.

(We currently have a similar problem with the links to edit the 0th section of the page, they all fail to display the distinction between editing the 0th section and the whole page.)

This is not part of the work on adding new discussions, buuuut, you can think about adding a new discussion as "adding a new heading" and then "adding a top-level comment". It's much easier to present the interface for these two actions when you're doing them at the same time ;)

Ladsgroup (talkcontribs)

Hmm, I'm no UX designer but one idea would be to put it on top of section next to "Edit section" as If I wanted to do it, I'd click on the edit section link. In that case it would be similar to having VE/SE side-by-side. It doesn't address the section 0 problem though.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

phab:T265750 is about being able to change the indentation manually. I wonder whether this could be a special case of that.

Reply to "Writing a new paragraph in an existing discussion"
Ladsgroup (talkcontribs)

First of all, IT IS AWESOME. Thank you! One idea. Is there a way to put a link to thank the text next to reply? Similar to flow. Right now, If I want to thank someone, I need to go to history and find the text and thank the person (even having a confirmation is okay for, to lazy load the revision id to thank). Many thanks! (pun intended).

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

hi @Ladsgroup – thank you for saying something about this! We agree with you in thinking an easy way to "Thank" someone in-line would be valuable. As for when this might get implemented, I'm not yet sure. Although, if you're curious to know when that date becomes clear, you might subscribe to this Phab task: T249893.


Also, we're glad to hear you're enjoying the tool ^ _ ^

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This has been discussed before. Sending thanks requires knowing the revision number. The revision number is not (and cannot reliably) be known until after the edit has been saved. I am hoping that the team will find a solution that lets us have quick access to Thanks despite this obstacle.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

I think you mess up things here, Whatamidoing (WMF). Yes, the revision ID of a comment cannot be reliably guessed before actually posting it—but one cannot thank themselves anyway. Guessing the revision ID of an already-posted comment is also tricky, though, especially when a comment has been edited afterwards (like your latest non-Flow reply to me ;))—which edit do I want to thank for? I wanted for the first one, but I had to inspect the diff between the two to decide on this.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

In previous discussions, the main question was whether they could sign a message with something like "Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC) (thank)". Guessing it afterwards works for me, too, although the speed of Who Wrote That? suggests problems on high-traffic pages.

Reply to "Thanking on the text"

Adding outdent option?

19
Summary by Whatamidoing (WMF)
Épine (talkcontribs)

I am loving this new tool, it made discussions a lot easier to have, however, I suggest adding the Outdent template to the tool so we can use it when conversations get lengthy, or the tool adds it when the conversation reaches a certain point.

Patriccck (talkcontribs)

Hello, how it works?

Épine (talkcontribs)
Patriccck (talkcontribs)
Épine (talkcontribs)

It is actually very practical. What does the tool do if we continue a discussion for a long time? it can't indent it forever, we would need to outdent to the beginning of the page at some point, and we'd have to do it by using source editor because the tool does not contain the option. If it did the outdent at some point automatically, that would be even better.

ESanders (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Épine thanks for the suggestion. The tools support conversations that already use outdent templates. Having the tool insert these template is a bit more complicated because the template name can be different on every wiki, or may not exist. We will have to consider if this is a priority right now given that they are relatively rarely used and can still be inserted by experienced users using the edit button.

Épine (talkcontribs)

The template can easily be exported to all Wikis where this feature is available and when it's available site-wide we can export to the rest. It is not a hard thing to do imo, minus the technical difficulties of actually incorporating it into the tool, which I do not know about.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The templates don't change the formatting of the page. They just draw an arrow or some lines. You can stick them in the middle of a sentence like this: ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As you can see, they don't change anything. What actually changes the "indentation" is that people learn to not manually type so many colons when they want to change the indentation. The template is a signal to the reader that this non-indented comment is related to the previous, heavily-indented ones, but it's just a visual symbol. It does not change the formatting.

62.201.243.135 (talkcontribs)

I know that, but when a pipe is added plus the colons corresponding the previous comment, it stretches from that one to the new one. I want it there for the visual cue likewise.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I like the appearance, too. Some people prefer (←) or other signals instead.

Épine (talkcontribs)

Other users rarely edit other people's discussions. I have never seen anyone outdent the comment of another person (I don't think that is even allowed according to the talk page policy). Anyway, I think it is very necessary to have. Speaking on behalf of the ckb wiki, we actually have redirects for all our templates from English to Kurdish, many of them still remain in English anyway.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

> I have never seen anyone outdent the comment of another person

I've done it. The rules at the English Wikipedia allow this in most cases. However, it usually isn't necessary to outdent someone else's comments.

Épine (talkcontribs)

But why would someone else do it when the person themselves can do this with a click if the tool made it available? Many people skip doing it because of the awkwardly long time it needs to perform traditionally.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Because changing the colons in the existing wikitext is the only way to change the visible "indentation" for existing comments.

ネイ (talkcontribs)

For your info - we have the same request regarding usage of Template:Outdent in jawiki (see w:ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/返信ツールをベータ機能として導入する提案). Also, according to d:Q5841554, Template:Outdent exists in 70 Wikipedias. As for usage count, enwiki has 60k, frwiki has 5.6k, ja/ko/nl/zhwiki has <1k (data per templatecount.toolforge.org).

I think there are much more usages where Template:Outdent is not called and users simply reduce the level of indentation when needed.

ネイ (talkcontribs)

A suggestion from jawiki by User:お好み焼き星人: Perhaps adding a checkbox in the Advanced tab, for the user to indicate when to reduce the level of indentation?

Even if allowing Template:Outdent is difficult, there at least needs to be a way to reduce the level of indentation.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think that ネイ has a good idea. We can skip the template (at least, in the beginning), and change the indentation directly.

Imagine a conversation that has reached 12 indentations: ::::::::::::. What should the editor do? Click a button to start over at :? Click the button 11 times to get to :? (Then you could click the button once to get back to :::::::::::, or five times to get to :::::::, or whatever you want.) Something else?

ネイ (talkcontribs)

Answers from jawiki:

  • User:Keruby: Click the button 11 times to get to :, then click the button once to get back to ::::::::::::. (12->11->...->1->12)
  • User:お好み焼き星人: Perhaps make it a drop down box (where each choice is the level of indentation) instead of a button. If we use a button, then click the button once to get to :, and increase the indentation level by one per button click afterwards. (12->1->2->...->11->12)
  • User:Portal18: Either of these two are fine.
    1. Click the button once to get to ::::::::::: (reduce by one level), then click once more to get to :, and increase the indentation level by one per button click afterwards. (12->11->1->2->3->...->12)
    2. Click the button once to get to :, then click once more to get to ::::::::::: (reduce by one level), and decrease the indentation level by one per button click afterwards. (12->1->11->10->...->1->12)
  • My opinion is that if we start with 12 indentations, then usually we dedent up to 1 (lowest level) or 11 (same as previous comment), so we probably want one of them to show up with one button click instead of 11 clicks.

Numbers at the end of the line are indentation levels after each click, where it always starts with 12 before any button clicks.

All three users stated the need to have some kind of preview, presumably because the current preview screen of Reply Tool does not show the level of indentations.

Pelagic (talkcontribs)

The edit box itself is visually indented, but that can be non-obvious at low indent levels or if you’re not already aware of it. People who are used to working in wikitext can get confused that the ::: isn’t displayed. I recall some people mentioning it in the early testing stages of this project also. On the other hand, once you do know how it works, I feel the usability is pretty good. That's one of the reasons I thought having a [?] button with some hints could help.

Alternately, at the risk of more clutter, you could render the appropriate number of “:::::” in the space to the left (or right in RTL scripts) of the editing box when in source mode. (Would people find the indicator intuitive or more confusing? Should it be non-editable or click-to-edit?)

To increase/decrease indentation, you could have three buttons: [ |< ] [ < ] [ > ]. Do you hide them under Advanced? Or have a single in/outdent drop-down button in the toolbar, with three menuitems?

Reply to "Adding outdent option?"
Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

Using this tool, the user's signature, currently ~~~~, is automatically inserted. But it is better that that is --~~~~, I think. Because the end of comment and the start of signature might not obvious, depending on design of user's signature; so -- is necessary as border between those. Thank you.

Matěj Suchánek (talkcontribs)

This can be changed per wiki on "MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix".

Omotecho (talkcontribs)

@Atmark-chan, adding two minus is a local rule to jawiki, so pls refer to Matěj Suchánek’s input. Cheers,

Atmark-chan (talkcontribs)

Including additional manual [reply] links

12
Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

For a situation where a user is making multiple points in a comment and expects people to respond to each is it possible to manually insert additional [reply] links?

For example:

Here is my example comment in which I make several points:

  • first point is a paragraph long [reply]
  • second point is a paragraph long [reply]
  • third point is a paragraph long [reply]

In conclusion this was my comment. Signature time etc [reply]

Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

You kind of can do this by adding your signature after every bullet point.

Without adding multiple signatures, replying inline causes problems for detecting who is the author of the comments. Let's imagine that in your example, someone added a reply to the first point:

Here is my example comment in which I make several points:

  • first point is a paragraph long
    Hello, I disagree! Signature2 time2
  • second point is a paragraph long
  • third point is a paragraph long

In conclusion this was my comment. Signature time etc

To our software (and also, to some of the people reading it), it will now look as if the Signature2 applied to the reply and to the first half of the original comment; and as if Signature only applied to the second half of the comment. This in turn results in confusing placement of [reply] links, and may also result in incorrect notifications being sent (we're planning to work on notifications next).

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm thinking about it from the point of view where commenters are indicated by colouring - either via templates (example), or whatever extension/gadge fr.wp uses.

I notice that on fr.wp, including signatures on multiple lines of bulletpoint creates an artefact where the top bulletpoint reply link creates the reply box in the wrong location. Code to reproduce:

General text.
*Some statement with a dated signature. ~~~~
*Some statement with a dated signature. ~~~~
*Some statement with a dated signature. ~~~~
Final notes. ~~~~

Is this possible to fix or is it fundamental to how the extension operates?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

About where to reply in that sort of "mixed" comment: they did it one way originally, and people complained, and now they switched it the other way, and other people complain. I think it's a case of whatever they do, it won't be the right answer in some situations.

Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

Yes, see T252702 for more context. The reply tool has no way to know whether that should be treated as an indented comment, or as an un-indented comment that has a list at the end. We decided to treat is as un-indented comment, based on the complaints we got, but there are always some situations where the opposite would be better. I don't think we can do anything to avoid it.

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Ah, yes I now see the ambiguity. Fair enough.

A followup in that case: is there a way to optionally make it appear after an "invisible" signature, e.g. <span style="font-size:0px">~~~~</span>? I think at the moment, the [reply] is bein places inside that span, so is also invisible.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Do people really want that? When I've seen "Hello, I disagree! Signature2 time2" in the middle of discussions, sometimes people complain about not being able to figure out which parts were written by which person.

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

I don't know how generally useful it is in other wikis - and I definitely know what you mean about people replying in the middle of someone else's bulletpoint list, fragmenting the original comment.

However, the context in which it useful is in the peer review pages over in wikiversity where people often like to respond point-by-point e.g.:

Whereas other times they prefer to respond as a more traditional block of text below, e.g.:

And occasionally as a mix for different sections, e.g.:

Currently we use {{Review}} and {{Response}} templates to distinguish who's who, but we're keen on make the formatting more automated and interface more intuitive to non-wikimedians.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I've seen point-by-point replies on the English Wikipedia at FAC and GA.

What do you think of the styling that the French Wikipedia uses on their talk pages?

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Yes, FA and GA review also often have something similar.

I rather like the fr.wp talkpage formatting, although the exact style seems a little old fashioned. Even if the alternating background colours are omitted, a simple left boarder (maybe that emphasises on hover) is useful for tracking complex conversation threading.

You can see the formatting I've been playing around with here:

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The hover feature is quite nice. You are a person of many talents. :-)

@PPelberg (WMF), is there anything published about making talk pages more legible? I know it's on the list for upcoming quarters.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The hover feature is quite nice. You are a person of many talents. :-)

+1 This is neat, @Evolution and evolvability!

@PPelberg (WMF), is there anything published about making talk pages more legible? I know it's on the list for upcoming quarters.

The public documentation around making talk pages more legible exists in Phabricator (see: T249579) for now. We haven't published a project page on MediaWiki.org just yet.

@Evolution and evolvability , I've just added the experimenting you've been doing to the "Improvised solutions" section of T249579's task description. As you think about more ideas or notice others, @Whatamidoing (WMF) and I would value you letting us know.

Reply to "Including additional manual [reply] links"
Summary by Evolution and evolvability

Already implemented ( button or simply by typing @)

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Although I realise that adding templates within the [reply] tool isn't yet possible (in VE mode), It'd be useful to recreate the functionality of the ping / reply template. Currently when replying there's a nice grey out "Reply to UserXYZ" preloaded text, but it'd be great if there was some button either at the start of the comment to include a ping, or a tickbox by the reply button saying "reply and notify UserXYZ"

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

Not at the start of the comment, but you can mention other users—either with a toolbar icon (I haven’t found the exact icon on Commons, but it looks similar to ), or simply by typing @. (Both are only available in visual mode, but in source mode you can use the good old {{ping}} template.)

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

The @ feature in VE is perfect - I'd not come across it as a function previously. Thanks!

Implementing for a subset of pages on a Wiki?

3
Summary by Evolution and evolvability

When activated, will be available on all talkpages. To activate on non-talkpages, include magicword __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)
Geraki (talkcontribs)

I think it does work per page when you put __NEWSECTIONLINK__, so if you put it in a "template" page like v:WikiJournal of Medicine/Issues it will be enabled in all pages that transclude it.

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Ah interesting. I've done some testing and checked the magicwords page to understand a bit better.

I've edited my initial query to clarify that it's only the talkpages that'd need. However it looks as though we may just activate the extension for all talkpages in en.wv, which would also work fine.