User talk:Quiddity (WMF)

Thank you for your help replying to my question at Project:Requests. Indeed, if I go to, say User talk:MarcoAurelio/Archive 2 which never existed, a Flow board is already there.

(sorry for the broken message, I had to switch to wikicode editor because Flow broke when trying to link to Project:Requests)

Regards.

Thanks for cleaning up my messy links, and for being a kick-ass admin to this wiki.

Sonkiki (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me find my way around merging etiquette and other aspects of the Wikiverse.

Sonkiki (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for leaving feedback on the Wikistats - Future per report and Feedback/Round 1 pages. We used it to build an interactive prototype of the next version of Wikistats. We're now looking for feedback on the visual design, and we'd love your input. We have some follow-up questions but mostly an open discussion at Request for feedback/Round2 (if you prefer email, write to milimetric@wikimedia.org and please include "Wikistats Design" in the subject). Please comment by Monday, May 1st so we can include your feedback into the first release of Wikistats 2.0. Thank you very much!

Your Wikistats 2.0 Team, -13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity. Regarding upcoming significant UI changes, I'm aware of the 2017 Wikitext editor and the possible Timeless skin. Are you aware of any other significant changes on the horizon that would likely result in the need for widespread changes to the LearnWiki videos after the UI changes are made? The videos can be updated relatively easily to adapt to minor design changes such as the appearance of a progress bar, but changing where commonly used buttons appear or other changes that would disorient users would be important for me to know soon so that I can try to adapt LearnWiki to them before scripts move into production. Thanks.

Hi Pine. The other things that you're almost certainly already aware of are ERI (in current Beta Features), and the save/publish button change currently scheduled for early May. Beyond that, there are the usual ongoing incremental standardizations to the OOUI system, but that will mostly just be minor colour changes, and not location changes/rearrangements or anything overly confusing. However, as will always be the case, someone might have an epiphany for an improvement in any aspect of the site, and so I can't predict the future with certainty.

Are your in-progress scripts available anywhere, so that I can look through them? [searches... searches...] Ah, m:Grants:IEG/Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia/Scripts (always include links!). From a quick skim through that, nothing leaps out at me as an area that the UI might change. I'll try to take a closer look when I have time (likely a couple of weeks). Feel free to remind me then.

Thanks. Please don't review the LearnWiki draft scripts yet until I've made an announcement, but having comments on the *outline* would be helpful during the next month or two.

Regarding predicting change, as Yoda once said, "Always in motion is the future." That's my Zen thought, anyway.

I was going to reply to your comment at the hovercard-talkpage, but the discussion is locked against anons.   ("Reason:  excessive everything")

Here is the talkage, section is "Similar browser extensions or add-ons to be inspired by"

First, a complaint slash anti-comment:  

• "...To show how popular the idea was (proving we ought to implement something)..."

Please don't think like that.  en:WP:NOTFACEBOOK is important.  Just because something is popular on other websites built with other purposes and priorities in mind, does NOT prove that the wmf ought to waste time implementing 'it' (whatever feature 'it' happens to be) for use on wikipedia.  There is such a thing as a misfeature.  For instance, I'm sure you could do some research, and learn that most major websites have banner-adverts.  That is a very popular thing.  But just because it is popular, very much does not mean, that wikipedia also should be doing it.  See the parable of your friends, and jumping off the bridge.

 

Second, my question slash fear is, I notice that #1) the explanation of the hovercards feature is silent on whether it will popup a hovercard for enWiki links only, or whether it will also popup a hovercard for ELs.  I further notice that #2) there are plans to make hovercard 2.0 or whatever, eventually support interwiki-popups.  Are there plans to make hovercards for ELs?  Because with the exception of interwiki links (frWiki and wiktionary and such), that is probably a en:WP:BADIDEA thanks to unintended consequences.  The main reason that other websites implement hovercards, is related to banner-advert revenues.  Why wait for the reader to actively CLICK on linkspam, when you can forcibly shove the advertising into their faces merely when they move their mouse around?  In terms of enWiki and other wikipedia projects, implementing hovercards for footnotes is extremely useful, and implementing hovercards for wikilinks and interwikilinks will also be SOMEWHAT useful. 

But don't make the mistake of assuming that, hey we need hovercards for ELs just like we have them for interwiki-links.  That would incentivize increasing refspam, inline-EL-linkspam, and other kinds of undesired edits.  I understand that technologically implementing interwiki-hovercards is not much different than implementing EL-hovercards, but don't treat them as the same sociologically, they will have very different impacts.  And just because other websites do it, should not be treated as 'proof' wikipedia websites ought to follow along.  Best, ~~~~

Hi. 1) Yup, I agree that common sense is required! (and also not always very common/widespread, despite the name! [the term always makes me think of Calvin...])

2) Yikes, no! I've never even seen that suggested before, and completely agree it would be a terrible idea. I would add detail to that, and explicitly say that it should not even consider interwiki links to non-Wikimedia-wikis (i.e. most of the items in the top-half of Special:Interwiki) but I'll emphasize nobody has ever suggested it should. Definitely 100% not.

Thanks for elaborating on your concerns though!

Hello! Thank you for leaving feedback on the Wikistats - Future per report page. We read it carefully and designed a set of wireframes that reflects your priorities. We're now looking for feedback on the design, and we'd love your input. We have key questions that touch on different sections, and links for feedback here: Request for feedback/Round 1 (if you prefer email, write to milimetric@wikimedia.org and please include "Wikistats Design" in the subject). Please comment by Monday, February 13th so we can include your thoughts and iterate. Thank you very much!

Your Wikistats 2.0 Team, 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

aime tu les chats

Sisi la famille (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary: There's a new opt-in Beta Feature of a wikitext mode for the visual editor. Please go try it out.

We in the Wikimedia Foundation's Editing department are responsible for making editing better for all our editors, new and experienced alike. We've been slowly improving the visual editor based on feedback, user tests, and feature requests. However, that doesn't work for all our user needs: whether you need to edit a wikitext talk page, create a template, or fix some broken reference syntax, sometimes you need to use wikitext, and many experienced editors prefer it.

Consequently, we've planned a "wikitext mode" for the visual editor for a long time. It provides as much of the visual editor's features as possible, for those times that you need or want wikitext. It has the same user interface as the visual editor, including the same toolbar across the top with the same buttons. It provides access to the citoid service for formatting citations, integrated search options for inserting images, and the ability to add new templates in a simple dialog. Like in the visual editor, if you paste in formatted text copied from another page, then formatting (such as bolding) will automatically be converted into wikitext.

All wikis now have access to this mode as a Beta Feature. When enabled, it replaces your existing wikitext editor everywhere. If you don't like it, you can reverse this at any time by turning off the Beta Feature in your preferences. We don't want to surprise anyone, so it's strictly an opt-in-only Beta Feature. It won't switch on automatically for anyone, even if you have previously checked the box to "Automatically enable all new beta features".

The new wikitext edit mode is based on the visual editor, so it requires JavaScript (as does the current wikitext editor). It doesn't work with gadgets that have only been designed for the older one (and vice versa), so some users will miss gadgets they find important. We're happy to work with gadget authors to help them update their code to work with both editors. We're not planning to get rid of the current main wikitext editor on desktop in the foreseeable future. We're also not going to remove the existing ability to edit plain wikitext without JavaScript. Finally, though it should go without saying, if you prefer to continue using the current wikitext editor, then you may so do.

This is an early version, and we'd love to know what you think so we can make it better. Please leave feedback about the new mode on the feedback page. You may write comments in any language. Thank you.

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) 19:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Was testing Phab:T154156

	The Special Barnstar
	This is a test.

See phab:T154156.