Topic on Talk:Talk pages project

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T251350

Hi! I notice that indendation goes one notch when replying to a discussion post. This is the same regardless if you put your reply at the bottom of the discussion or _within_ the discussion. In the latter case the indendation is the same as the earlier reply below, which makes telling the two posts apart. Would it be possibly to develop some sort of fix to this?

This is a reply to the first post

This is my third post, replying to my first post.

This is my fourth post, replying to my third post

And this is a reply to my first reply

This is my fifth post, replying to my second post

... which reported a failure due to timeout, but did post. :-(

5B -- Replying to reply to reply 5

5D -- replying to 5B 5B should probably be indented twice

5C replying directly to 5

This is my fifth post, replying to my second post

This is my fifth post, replying to my second post

@GhostInTheMachine, this page uses Structured Discussions (aka Flow). It's the default that this community chose a few years ago. The Talk pages project isn't about Flow.

Please could you point me to an overview of Flow vs. Structured Discussions post-Flow vs. Current developments vs. Plans for the future. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What we're typing in now is Structured Discussions (=the parts of Flow that actually got built). Current work is on the Reply tool, which you can test by clicking on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project?dtenable=1 and looking for the [reply] buttons at the end of each line. Plans for the future include Talk pages project/New discussion, and (we all hope) maybe even section watchlisting ("Imagine a world in which you can watchlist only a single section of WP:ANI").

If you click reply on some message it will create one more step of ident under message you click "reply". If you want at identation at the same level as last message, click reply button on parent message. By clicking reply you are telling your message is releated to post you clicked and next identation tells it. If this doesn't happen this way, give link to example of discussion where it happens and with example of messages you want to reply.

Thanks for the your reply, pointing to the general behaviour of the tool. What I was looking at was a way of making the indentation _two_ notches to the right, not one. That behaviour would mimick the normal behaviour when you reply manually within a thread, letting people know that your posting and the posting below are not directly related. Maybe comparing time stamps could implement such a behaviour? All the best.

Just to be clear of what I'm talking about. It's about replying to a posting _inside_ an ongoing thread (between the postings), _not_ below all the previous postings of this thread.

You will need to provide an example. The only behavior I can see for this is, if not non-standard, then at least unusual and generally unnecessary.

OK. Within the "modern" reply technique used on this very discussion page, such a behaviour is unnecessary, as the posting starts with the signature. When replying in the "traditional" discussion format (standard at my native sv:wp), any posting starts with plain text. A multi-paragraph reply inside a thread is distinguished by its indent, not by indent plus a starting signature. This make replies with the same indent harder to differentiate. You can see double indent being used when replying "within" in this thread (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Fortsatt_diskussion) and in this thread (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Stubb_och_noter). All the best.

@Wargo: @Izno: Another example (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ans%C3%B6kan_om_administrativ_beh%C3%B6righet#Jan_Arvid_G%C3%B6tesson), by Janders, at 27 September 2020 kl. 15.37. All the best.

Some people like this style, and others don't. I've seen disputes at the English Wikipedia in which editors claim that their preference is the "correct" style. One style (the "double-indent") makes it easier to see which words were posted by which editor; the other style (the "same level") makes it easier to see which comment the second person was replying to.

If you are interested in the general subject of making it easier to see threading, then you might want to look at the pale blue lines on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Outils_de_discussion It doesn't separate comments at the same indentation level, but it does mark some things. Also, be on the lookout for a technical request for comment in a few weeks. If they settle on a style for wrapping complex content/solving some w:en:WP:LISTGAP problems, it might be easier to visually mark separate comments in the future.

Thanks for the links and tips. I see that the replying tool I was referring to does not seem to put the reply after a posting inside a thread but at the end of the whole thread. So this behaviour defeats the purpose of posting inside a thread using this "gadget". So I'll return to replying manually, as all the other posters at sv:wp seem to do. All the best.

@Paracel63, can you give me a diff of the reply ending up in the wrong place? Was this at the Swedish Wikipedia?

Hi! Here I produced a test thread on my user discussion page at sv:wp. Yes, the problems are happening at sv:wp. The postings are being numbered in the order they were posted; "efter X" means they are produced through clicking at [ svara ] at the end of that specific posting.

Results: #5 was placed after #4 (and not after #1); #6 was placed after #4 (and not after #3); #7 was (correctly!) placed after #4; #8 was placed after #6 (and not after #2; diff). So 3 out of 4 nested replies were not properly placed. It really seems like the tool does not identify the postings in the right chronological order.

{{ping|Whatamidoing (WMF)}} Ping!

Yes, I've seen that. It places replies according to the list structure, rather than according to chronological order. This means that when you reply to comment #4, it places the comment in the first available sub-list space under comment #4, which happens to be immediately under it. Comment #5, which is a reply to comment #1, goes in the first available sub-list space under comment #1, which is even with comment #2 and at the end.

It might make more sense if you think of the discussion as being a real list or outline:

1. Things I want for school
   1. Food
      1. Apples
      2. Oranges
   2. Clothing
      1. Comfortable shoes
   3. Computers
      1. Phone
      2. Laptop

If you were "replying" to "Things I want", you'd expect that to be #4 on the level with (and immediately after) #3 "Computers". But if you're "replying' to "Food", you want the list to put "Chocolate" after "Oranges", not after "Laptop".

If they built a strict chronological system, then you couldn't use the Reply tool to inject a comment into the middle of a long discussion, because your comment would always end up at the end of the section.

As a workaround, you can click the "Reply" button for a different comment, to get the placement where you want it to be. For example, if you want your comment at the end, then click the reply button for the last comment.

Yes, you're correct. My reasoning was only consistent with my (original) wish to have a nested reply with enhanced indent and placed directly below the post being replied to. I totally agree that the indexing system is a good way of organising discussions with this tool, if others do not agree to my modus operandi. All the best. :-)

I do still wish that the devs could figure out some sort of magic system that will put my replies where I think they belong. In the meantime, I think we're going to be stuck with the normal editor for that.