Naar inhoud springen

Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen/Archief 1

Pagina-inhoud wordt niet ondersteund in andere talen.
Onderwerp toevoegen
Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie
< Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen
Laatste reactie: 3 jaar geleden door Ad Huikeshoven

(Feedback die in de periode begin april – begin juli 2020 gegeven is op de (toen nog geheten) pagina Wikipedia:Discussietools; gearchiveerd van deze versie)

Als uitvloeisel van Wikipedia:Overlegpagina's raadpleging 2019 zijn er discussietools in ontwikkeling. De eerste tool is nu als bètafeature beschikbaar. Dat is de Antwoordentool of Reageerfunctie. In het Engels: Reply-tool. Deze tool is sinds maart 2020 als pilot beschikbaar op vier wiki's. Een algemene beschrijving van de functie staat op Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen, waaronder uitleg hoe je 'm aan en uitzet.

Op mw:Talk:Talk pages project is al feedback op de tool te lezen van de Hongaarse Wikipedia (directe link naar de topic). Wat zijn de ervaringen met de Antwoordentool op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia? Die vraag staat centraal op deze pagina.

Feedback op de Antwoordentool[brontekst bewerken]

Wat heb je opgemerkt bij het gebruik van de Antwoordentool op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia? @Encycloon, Mbch331, Bdijkstra, DutchTina, Troefkaart, Soreat, De Maghrebijn: @Richardkiwi, Ymnes, Akoopal: Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 7 apr 2020 20:42 (CEST)Reageren

  • Often on longer pages, after saving the reply, the page scrolls all the way up and you loose the point where you were on the page, for instance when I did this edit. Ciell 9 mei 2020 14:48 (CEST)Reageren
  • Also, why was there an extra white space added on the top of the topic? (I did not add that). Ciell 9 mei 2020 14:48 (CEST)Reageren
  • Can you tell me why Wikipedia:Wikiproject/LHBT doesn't wotk in the VE? Must be something to do with the code on the text, maybe it is considered as one huge template? Ciell 15 mei 2020 23:15 (CEST)Reageren
  • Een heel andere waar ik tegen aanloop, is het aanpassen van je eigen bijdrage. Ik neem aan dat iedereen het wel eens heeft dat hij opslaat, naleest, en dan denkt 'oeps'. Nu kan je eigenlijk alleen de hele sectie bewerken als brontekst, en je bijdragen opzoeken. Het zou handig zijn als bij een bijdrage ook een edit-knop komt om in dezelfde interface weer aan te passen, mogelijk alleen bij je eigen bijdragen, herkenbaar aan een link naar je eigen GP/OP. Een edit bij alle bijdragen lokt misschien teveel uit om bijdragen van anderen aan te passen. Maar is dit iets binnen de scope van de tool? Is er misschien van een phabricator-ticket over? Akoopal overleg. 24 mei 2020 11:43 (CEST)Reageren
    • Valide punt. Is opgenomen in phab:T245225 'Implement editing specific comments'. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 24 mei 2020 14:00 (CEST)Reageren
      • Ook uitgaande van de in Overleg Wikipedia:Discussietools#Proposed changes weergegeven mockup-afbeeldingen is een edit-link bij eigen bijdragen inderdaad wat men voor ogen heeft. Technisch is het wel lastig, maak ik op uit de phabricator-tasks. Het zou mooi zijn als het lukt! Met vriendelijke groeten — Mar(c). [O] 24 mei 2020 17:19 (CEST)Reageren
        • @Akoopal, it's helpful to hear this feedback about editing specific comments – thank you for sharing it.
        • Two up questions for you:
          1. For what reasons have you noticed yourself wanting to edit comments you've posted on talk pages?
          2. Have you noticed yourself wanting to editing comments you've posted with the Reply tool any more or less frequently than comments you've posted using full-page source editing?
        • PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 28 mei 2020 17:27 (CEST)Reageren
          • @PPelberg: Mostly I tend to want to edit is small spelling mistakes. Rarely to add something to the comment, if it is significant I tend to simply reply to myself. I don't think there is difference between the Reply tool and just editing the page, with one exception, editing your own comment because of a forgotten signature, which won't happen with the Reply tool. I do think that once the edit functionality is there I will quicker fix a typo in a long discussion where with full source editing I might not bother because the inconvenience finding back your own edit isn't worth it. Akoopal overleg. 28 mei 2020 18:41 (CEST)Reageren
            • @PPelberg (WMF): and another one, a wrong ping. As I understand how pinging works I normally don't bother to edit, but if the tool would send the ping after fixing I of course would, so I think that would be useful (and yes, I have read the phabricator ticket as well). That is a tricky one, I think it should only notify if the notification has not send before, and not sure how feasible this is. Akoopal overleg. 28 mei 2020 18:46 (CEST)Reageren
              • This context is helpful – thank you, Akoopal.
              • Prompted by you mentioning "pings" I wonder: are you open to trying the Reply tool's new visual mode and sharing what you think about it?
              • The tool introduces, what is ideally, an easier way of pinging people. Whatamidoing (WMF) shared details about how to use it on nl.wiki here: diff=56401705; we also have a set of specific testing instructions here if you would rather experiment with it in a test environment: testing Reply tool version 2.0. PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 28 mei 2020 20:01 (CEST)Reageren
                • @PPelberg (WMF) I had seen the visual tool and started the second reply with it. I switched to source, to see what happened, and as I didn't like the @ disappearing, I rewrote it to the ping template. I however do like that functionality by itself having the lookup, and being less prone to errors and replacing the @ is more how it work on other social media. Also if you put in an internal link and it helps you is nice.
                • However, I am a bit doubtful on the concept of visually editing. I think a talk page should be about talk, so the content. The thinks you should only do are pings and internal or external links, all the other formatting will only distract from what it is about, having a discussion. The exception is when you talk about formatting, but then you quickly come at a point where the reply tool is too restrictive for giving an exampje and you jump out. Bit hesitant that people will start to decorate their content, distracting what it is about. But maybe I am to much old school. Akoopal overleg. 28 mei 2020 20:45 (CEST)Reageren
                  • For myself, if the "Source" mode had the same keyboard shortcuts working, I'd probably always reply in source mode.
                  • But right now, I want to ping @PPelberg (WMF), which is a lot easier in the visual mode. I'm noticing that when you switch modes, it records only the last-used mode in the Special:Tags on the edit. So, you start writing in source, switch to visual, click the big blue button, and it's "visual", or you write everything in visual mode, switch to source, and then it's "source". My question for everyone is: Is that actually likely to matter to editors? (I'm guessing that the answer is no, but tell me if my guess is wrong.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 30 mei 2020 05:58 (CEST)Reageren
                  • @Akoopal thank you for giving the tool a try. A couple comments/questions...
                  • "I switched to source, to see what happened, and as I didn't like the @ disappearing, I rewrote it to the ping template"
                  • Does the below describe what you experienced? If so, this issue should now be resolved. See: phab:T252460.
                    1. Insert an @-mention using the visual mode's new username lookup.
                    2. Switch to the Reply tool's source mode, notice the following appears: [[Gebruiker:NAME | Name]] instead of @[[Gebruiker:NAME | Name]]
                  • "The thinks you should only do are pings and internal or external links, all the other formatting will only distract from what it is about, having a discussion."
                  • Interesting point. What do you think the role of a local wiki's policy/cultural conventions are on how people "talk" in discussions? How does this role relate to/compliment the software's? PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 2 jun 2020 01:52 (CEST)Reageren
                    • @PPelberg (WMF) hmm, I now see that the @ stays, that wasn't the case when I tried before. I thought that @ only trickered to search a name, but didn't leave the @-sign. That has at least changed. Let's close this point.
                    • For the formatting, local policy will formally focus on civilised discussions, which are more important. What I see is that with tools like this the barrier to contribute will be lower (which is a good thing), but with formatting easier, the norm on it will change as well. Maybe it won't be so bad, and community pressure will steer it in the right direction.
                    • On you comment on conventions vs tools, as you ask it that direct (thanks) I indeed think that tools shouldn't enforce policy by default, only if it is possible in settings. Mediawiki is not only written for the wikimedia wiki's and even between the wikimedia wiki's there is difference of opinions. An example of how it should not be is the table editor of VE, that still doesn't support table colouring as there are a lot of people who don't like it, while it is being used on a lot of wiki's. Table editing in source mode is tricky, so I really like VE there, but this one limits the usefulness mostly on sport related pages. (but this is getting off topic)
                    • Last point, I deliberately used visual mode again for this comment, and using the url-hack is cumbersome, is't it possible to make this an extra beta-option? Akoopal overleg. 2 jun 2020 11:17 (CEST)Reageren
                      • Once the team believes that the visual mode won't break anything, it'll be part of the existing Beta Feature. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 3 jun 2020 02:00 (CEST)Reageren
                      • "...with formatting easier, the norm on it will change as well. Maybe it won't be so bad, and community pressure will steer it in the right direction."
                      • I think you put this well. Personally, I wonder whether the introduction of a new tool is a unique opportunity to learn the extent to which existing conventions are shaped by the state of the tools available and the extent to which these conventions are shaped by agreements between people that exist independent of the tools. I don't expect you to answer that! That thought just came to mind after reading what you had written and thought I'd share :)
                      • "I indeed think that tools shouldn't enforce policy by default..."
                      • I think I agree with you here. Let's pay attention to how people adopt the tool and go from there. PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 6 jun 2020 04:31 (CEST)Reageren
  • New option for testing: Please click https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Discussietools&dtvisual=1 and try out the new "visual" mode. Typing an @ symbol will get you to a special search box for pinging someone like Ad Huikeshoven. Also, most of the visual editor's keyboard shortcuts (e.g., for italics and inserting templates, but not for inserting tables) will work. ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 27 mei 2020 18:16 (CEST)Reageren
  • Replying to a nested numbered list, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_Wikipedia:Universele_gedragscode&type=revision&diff=56535077&oldid=56534101&diffmode=source . That is a list with two levels. With my edit I added a numbered point on the second level, that is now point 2 within outer level point 2. Now when you hit reply to that point, the text box appears right beneath it and indented with a bullet. However when you hit reply to the point above, point 1 within outer level point 2 it is going to be point 6 on the outer level. This is because points 1 and 2 of the outer level haven't been signed, I assume. However, it feels really weird. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 13 jun 2020 08:32 (CEST)Reageren
    • I'm pretty sure that the Reply tool used to take the list formatting from the last line, but people complained that this was weird. In your edit, it seems to take it from the first. Thanks for the link. I've pinged you in a couple of Phab tasks related to this. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 15 jun 2020 22:09 (CEST)Reageren
  • There is no reply link after this comment in the Village Pump: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:De_kroeg&type=revision&diff=56564918&oldid=56564809&diffmode=source Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 17 jun 2020 17:03 (CEST)Reageren
  • I believe it was already reported (seen the discussion somewhere), but it's irritating templates don't work in replies, when using visual mode. See this edit by me where I tried to add the template {{d}}, to mark in my reply that I fulfilled my request. These simple templates should be accepted in visual mode. Mbch331 (overleg) 24 jun 2020 19:39 (CEST)Reageren
    • We appreciate you saying something about this, @Mbch331.
    • Are you able to share what about the tool's visual mode you prefer? I ask this in an effort to understand how you've been using and thinking about the Reply tool's two modes.
    • So you're aware, these are the considerations that led us to disabling the {{ sequence (see: T253667) within the tool's visual mode:
      • Multi-line templates are not supported in indented comments, regardless of whether they are posted using the Reply tool or the full wikitext editor.
      • It's difficult for the Reply tool to know whether a template will produce multiple lines or not.
      • We are assuming people would prefer a tool they can depend on to work reliably all of the time to a tool that can do more things, but only works some of the time.
    • I should note two things:
      1. You should be able to use the {{d}} in the Reply tool's source mode.
      2. We are actively working to support multi-line templates in the Reply tool by way of introducing new wikitext for multi-line comments. What syntax will be used and how it will be implemented is going to be decided in an RfC that will we will be started in the next month or so. You can follow the progress on this RfC in Phabricator here: phab:T246960.
    • PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 3 jul 2020 20:36 (CEST)Reageren
Overgenomen van "https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen/Archief_1&oldid=56746923"