Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen

Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie
Naar navigatie springen Naar zoeken springen

Reacties gemaakt met de overleghulpmiddelen zie je bij de recente wijzigingen terug met label Reageerfunctie, met een link naar Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen. In eerste instantie werd feedback op de Overleghulpmiddelen verzameld op Wikipedia:Discussietools. Die pagina is nu hernoemd naar deze overlegpagina (Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen). Zie het Archief voor de betreffende gearchiveerde project- en bijbehorende overlegpagina.

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.

Wat zijn de ervaringen met de Reageerfunctie op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia? Die vraag staat centraal op deze pagina.

Feedback op de Antwoordentool[brontekst bewerken]

1rightarrow blue.svg Zie ook archief van eerdere feedback

Wat heb je opgemerkt bij het gebruik van de Reageerfunctie op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia?

  • @PPelberg (WMF): No idea what triggered the blockquote function here? (I don't even know what it does, let alone how to use it in the visual editor... ;-) ) Ciell 8 jul 2020 22:04 (CEST)
    • @Ciell that's curious...can you please confirm the below accurately describes what actually happened and what you expected to happen?
    • What you actually happened
      • Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment, "Zie en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements. –bdijkstra (overleg) 8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)[reply]"
      • Type En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]] in the Reply tool's visual mode
      • Post the comment you typed in "Step 2"
      • ✅ Notice the following is posted to the page: ::::<blockquote>En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]].</blockquote> :::: [[Gebruiker:Ciell|Ciell]] 8 jul 2020 21:59 (CEST)
    • What you expect to happen
      1. Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment, "Zie en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements. –bdijkstra (overleg) 8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)[reply]"
      2. Type En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]] in the Reply tool's visual mode
      3. Post the comment you typed in "Step 2"
      4. ✅ Notice the following is posted to the page: ::::En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]]. :::: [[Gebruiker:Ciell|Ciell]] 8 jul 2020 21:59 (CEST)
    • PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 9 jul 2020 02:14 (CEST)
    • What actually happened
      • Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment, "Zie en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements. –bdijkstra (overleg) 8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)[reply]"
      • Type En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]] in the Reply tool's visual mode
        • I used a colon (:) here to fix the line out with the next comment, I wanted it to move just one more place to the right to empathise my new remark on the same comment and make the difference known to the comment by Gebruiker:Wikidrinker. So: Type :En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]]. in the Reply tool's visual mode. Ciell 9 jul 2020 10:51 (CEST)
          • En Wikipedia:Donatie. (Ik tikte : en daarna Ctrl-z. Kennelijk triggert een dubbele punt dus block quote. En ik heb nog steeds last van de cursor die op een gegeven moment terugspringt in visuele modus als ik de shift toets indruk. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 9 jul 2020 15:36 (CEST)
            @Ad Huikeshoven I think I might have just experienced the cursor jumping issue you reported above! Can you please have a look at this video (https://imgur.com/a/VgnG2kc) and tell me if it shows (pressing shift causes the cursor to jump to the beginning of the line) what you are experiencing as well? cc @Whatamidoing (WMF) PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 12 jul 2020 21:23 (CEST)
            Looks like it. Does the cursor jump when you press shift? Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 12 jul 2020 23:58 (CEST)
            It does! I've filed a ticket for this issue here: phab: T258235. PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 17 jul 2020 03:57 (CEST)
        • The colon (:) is an undocumented keyboard shortcut in the visual editor for blockquotes. We might want to turn that off (unless you think people will want a lot of blockquotes on talk pages?). Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 10 jul 2020 02:47 (CEST)
          • @Whatamidoing (WMF) maybe the colon isn't a suitable keyboard shortcut for blockquotes. What about a right bracket "]" as a keyboard shortcut to start a block quote, as I can't imagine starting a context wherein I would want to start a comment with a right bracket. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 10 jul 2020 10:58 (CEST)
            • I agree with Ad here. A : is a bad shortcut, certainly because you are on talkpages where you expect a colon to give some more ident. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 10 jul 2020 21:45 (CEST)
              • "I used a colon (:) here to fix the line out with the next comment, I wanted it to move just one more place to the right to empathise my new remark on the same comment..."
              • Understood! Thank you for clarifying this, @Ciell and good thought, @Whatamidoing (WMF)...here is the ticket where we will be deciding on how the tool should behave when : is typed in the tool's visual mode: phab:T257709. PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 11 jul 2020 00:47 (CEST)

New talk sections[brontekst bewerken]

Hi, one I realised now, when you add a new section (like I am doing now) it would be nice to have the same visual mode to be able to easily ping somebody and some of the other features like an automatic signature. Don't think that will be difficult to implement? Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 10 jul 2020 21:48 (CEST)

@Akoopal good idea! In fact, a tool for creating new sections, as you described, will be the next thing we are working on. Would you mind if I copied and pasted the comment you posted above to the project's talk page? PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 11 jul 2020 00:09 (CEST)
It is posted under cc-by-sa as everything on the wiki . Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 11 jul 2020 00:15 (CEST)
True :) I've posted the suggestion you shared on mediawiki.org here. PPelberg (WMF) (overleg) 17 jul 2020 03:29 (CEST)

Next[brontekst bewerken]

Hello all,

Peter and I have been looking at the Reply tool's numbers, and here's what we see:

  • People who use the Reply tool tend to use it repeatedly. 78% used it more than once here at nlwiki.
  • People who used the Reply tool (ever) tend to use it on multiple days. 67% used it on more than one day here at nlwiki. (This number would include editors who have only ever edited on one day, so we would never expect it to be 100%.)

From the "numbers" side, this looks like a tool that's fairly effective. From my own personal experience, I'm happy with it. What I want to know is whether you think this would be helpful overall to the nlwiki community. If you want it turned on for everyone, then I'll ask the team to do that. (Of course anyone could opt out in Special:Preferences, if they didn't want it.) If you don't, then I would like to know what else the team should do (if anything) to make it more appropriate for nlwiki.

There's no deadline on my end of this discussion, but if nlwiki sees an uptick in newbies when the academic school year starts, then maybe it'd be better to have it in place sooner rather than later. I plan to be guided entirely by you about the schedule. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 16 jul 2020 19:03 (CEST)

Hello Whatamidoing,
I'm still very positive about the Reply Tool experience, with respect to both use and development, and I think it would be very welcome to have as a standard feature on nlwiki. I am reluctant though to see Discussion Tools, at this stage, already moving from opt-in beta feature to opt-out preference, because I consider the following discrepancies as (potentially) confusing to both senior and junior users (and making DT feel not 'complete' enough yet). Also, I see no need in connecting the release to some date on the (school year) calendar; there's no need to rush anything.
  1. Not being able to identify (easily) what else changed on the page after publishing a reply — while in fact a lot may have changed/added in the meantime. (T254116, also T250295 and related T252903)
    Some elaboration: Without DT, the three main page actions have distinctive purposes; action=view for reading, action=edit for changing and posting, and action=history for tracking changes. DT blurs those clear lines between purposes; the talk page and its edit page are to a certain degree being merged into one, which doesn't need to be navigated out of to post a comment, and doesn't need to be refreshed in order to see the just posted comment appear in its proper place. Plus, with the current approach of "completely updating the entire talk page content" when publishing a comment, a lot more happens to (the presentation of) the page than only adding the comment. The previously static talk pages are now getting dynamic; the more dynamic the talk page gets, the more I (as a user) expect the page to inform me about what's happening. I think some things need to be done to create a more intuitive user experience – to avoid a big difference between (unconscious) expectations, versus what's actually happening (with unexpected results). Some things to consider:
    • restrict the 'live updating' (when publishing a comment) to only the current section;
    • notify the user of changes in the current section before publishing a comment (as a first step in the process of publishing);
    • add some visual indication of (intermediate) changes to the current section after publishing a comment.
    Plus: The notifying of changes in the current section, and the (on demand) live updating of it with visual indications, could (should) actually be happening from the start of the comment writing process (when a 'Reply' link is clicked and the reply widget is initialized).
  2. Not being able to start a new topic on-page (the planned New Discussion Tool) — while being able to reply on-page (the Reply Tool).
  3. Not being able to type/change an edit summary with the Reply Tool — while about any other wiki edit action asks for one. (T249391)
These are my main concerns, which I (if I were the one to make the decision) would like to see tackled before releasing to opt-out preference. I considered also adding "not being able to edit own comments", but i.m.o. that's a feature that can be added later (when in 'alpha' stage); while adding a comment as a reply or as a new topic are, from a user's perspective, to such an extend the same, that offering only one of the two (to the unexpecting user) feels strange. About the first point: I think the whole "what happens when I publish a comment" process (with its unexpected effects, and with the expectations it raises) needs some more attention. Or does some development roadmap, in this respect, exist?
With kind regards — Mar(c).[overleg] 22 jul 2020 23:02 (CEST)
Thanks for this detailed response, @Mar(c). I'll number my replies:
  1. Do you think this will become a general expectation, even for normal wikitext editing, or is it specific to the Reply tool? If you look at w:en:WT:N yesterday, we were all posting simultaneously, and most of them were using the old wikitext editors. With the watchlist feature that keeps track of what your last-read version is, it's not difficult for volunteer-me to figure out what had changed while I was writing my replies (because that page is on my watchlist). However, I wonder whether people might reasonably expect some sort of notice. Maybe it could be something like the pop-up that says "Your edit was saved", except this time saying "Your edit was saved. There have been other changes to this page." If such notices should always happen, then IMO the Editing team should build the bigger solution and have it work for everything (including the Reply tool), instead of building a small solution for only the Reply tool.
  2. The team has gone back and forth about whether Reply and New Discussion should be considered one feature (e.g., a single pref setting) or two (e.g., you could enable Reply but turn off New Discussion). I don't expect the New Discussion changes to be as big. It's possible that the change could be as small as taking the existing ?action=edit&section=new and adding a visual mode or a live preview. If it's on the smaller side, would it still be worth waiting for?
  3. The edit summary work is already underway. While schedules are difficult to predict right now, I expect it to be ready for testing in August (maybe early August, if they settle on a specific approach soon). It is possible (because of the suggestion that this be an optional prefs setting) that phab:T202921 would also become part of this.
I have also wondered whether it would be a good idea to ask more editors here to try out the tool. Is there a group of editors you would recommend trying this tool? Maybe editors working on a busy group of articles, or admins at Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 24 jul 2020 19:56 (CEST)
Hi @Whatamidoing (WMF) I do belief the reply-tool does what it promised to do: the affordance to give a quick reply in an existing discussion on a talkpage, with auto indent and autosign. It also has some extra features. The goal has never been to do complex edits. The concerns of @Mar(c) are valid stories for future development, but do not block deployment in my opinion. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 24 jul 2020 14:50 (CEST)

Dirty diffs[brontekst bewerken]

Something broke with the Reply tool. The ticket is phab:T259855, and they are working on it now. The main symptom is that English-language namespaces get "fixed" and that some characters get percent-encoded. The team apologizes for the difficulties. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 7 aug 2020 19:15 (CEST)

@Whatamidoing: Sorry for not answering above; I planned to, but haven't gotten to it yet.
I noticed the issue you mention a couple of times, and especially this disruptive reply tool edit is pretty serious (I also reported it in the ticket). I hope after today's fix getting live we won't see issues like this again. But also note that the reply tool changing other parts of the wikicode isn't a new issue at all, so has it really been fixed? I know bugs can happen, but I see this issue as part of the tool's workflow that i.m.o. needs serious reconsideration. My consideration above, to "restrict the 'live updating' (when publishing a comment) to only the current section" didn't only arise from that intuitivity/expectations point, but also from other issues like the disappearance of the diff (when using the tool on a diff page), the changing of the collapse state of collapsable parts of the page, the (in general) 'jumping' of the page when publishing a comment (afaik mainly phab:T252903 touches these related issues), and highlighting different paragraphs than the just published comment (has this been reported yet?).
All in all, this issue strengthens my opinion not to push Discussion Tools from beta/opt-in to alpha/opt-out. I hope one of these days I can find the peace and quiet to dive back into #OWC2020 again (and answering you above!).
With kind regards — Mar(c).[overleg] 13 aug 2020 19:55 (CEST)
It came back; they reverted it again. (I'm in a meeting right now. More later.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 13 aug 2020 22:17 (CEST)
Meeting's over. Hi @Mar(c). Thanks for the note and especially for pinging me about the problem. They're trying to deploy a different API for the Reply tool, and it's not going well. I don't know what the underlying technical problem is.
Obviously, that kind of mess is bad, and it's better to keep the Reply tool as an opt-in Beta Feature, with only about 10 of us using it here at nlwiki, than to put it in regular preferences/opt-out and have that mess happening to hundreds or thousands of editors. I'd already pulled this wiki from the next deployment date (mostly because you asked for custom edit summaries), but that deployment is blocked by this problem. Nobody gets the Reply tool as an opt-out tool until the API is stable.
While I'm here, please look for a quick demo of the custom edit summary around 25 August (if all goes well). The best-case timeline is that the devs build the custom edit summary function next week, we can all check their ideas the following week, and the designer can look at our early feedback in the first week of September, and sort out the necessary changes with the devs after that. This means that even if they had the API stable tomorrow, the Dutch Wikipedia won't switch to opt-out any time soon. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 13 aug 2020 23:14 (CEST)
Yikes, I just read in the ticket that this damaging edit actually happened after the fix rolled out. Good thing is, such one only appeared to have happened twice (on the participating wikis together).
To be honest, in a way I'm glad that it's not only my concerns that's blocking moving it to opt-out; they're founded concerns but still my personal view.
Thanks for the upate! — Mar(c).[overleg] 13 aug 2020 23:53 (CEST)
You're welcome. This won't happen tomorrow, because they don't deploy new things on Fridays. [Read that as meaning: If something breaks tomorrow, please do ping me/Peter/Matma Rex, or jump on Phabricator and file bug reports, but it'll be a different thing that broke, rather than the new API.] I don't expect to have any further information about the new API problems until next week (at least). Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 14 aug 2020 01:24 (CEST)

VE or reply tool? Ugly![brontekst bewerken]

Hi @PPelberg (WMF), Whatamidoing (WMF):,

I noticed when I wanted to add an extra sub-topic in the Village Pump just now and choose to work in VE, the topic looks really bad. Lots and lots of white space, and editing is almost impossible because of how confusing it is. Is this a VE thing, or does it have to do with the reply-tool maybe? Ciell 26 aug 2020 15:05 (CEST)

It's not the Reply tool. It's sort of VE. It's mostly the parser. Every time we add a blank line or "outdent" a comment (e.g., from :::::::::: to ::), the HTML records the end of that part of the list. The visual editor is looking at that series of HTML </dd> and related tags (use "Show Page Source" or equivalent to see the raw HTML) and giving you a chance to add something at each of the separate levels. It's "correct" but IMO ugly. The most relevant Phabricator tasks is phab:T109934. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 26 aug 2020 20:33 (CEST)
In principle it has always been said that VE is not suitable for discussion pages. As far as I understand it is enabled per namespace, for a lot of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace it is wanted to have VE, and you can't exclude the 'cafe' pages. A 'fix' would be to move them all to a separate namespace, but that will need discussion first, and not sure if people are open for that. Doing so will make it easier to switch to something like flow for them. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 30 aug 2020 10:52 (CEST)
When I open choose to work in VE, I don't see a reply link ('reageer') anywhere, so it can't be the reply tool. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 31 aug 2020 19:52 (CEST)

Reply function in a div[brontekst bewerken]

I tried to use the reply function on a user that uses a div to give his talkpage a bit of color. When I try to use the reply function I get a remark that it is not possible. Is that already a known issue? Is it fixable? Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 16 sep 2020 19:07 (CEST)

Isn't that the same as the error that kind of mark up gives with VE?
Because the tool recognize the mark up as a template, they won't work. Ciell 16 sep 2020 19:40 (CEST)
Known problem. This is not expected to be fixed any time soon. My own personal guess is that it won't be fixed at least until the old PHP parser has been removed (so, maybe next year, but not this year). Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 18 sep 2020 17:34 (CEST)

custom edit mode[brontekst bewerken]

Custom edit summary text test found under advanced tab. On my mobile screen the buttons under the box aren't aligned. There is extra wire space above the cancel and reply buttons. On en.wp I couldn't enable dt. @Whatamidoing (WMF) Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 23 sep 2020 09:49 (CEST)

JKlein (WMF) will want to know about the mis-aligned buttons. Ad Huikeshoven, could you maybe dump a screenshot into a new Phabricator task for this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 24 sep 2020 20:01 (CEST)
Yes! Thanks, please share if you can. JKlein (WMF) (overleg) 24 sep 2020 21:18 (CEST)

New editors starting new sections[brontekst bewerken]

Hello, all. The Editing team is working on the mw:Talk pages project/New discussion project. They would like to know how things go wrong with the current system for starting a ==New section==. So, for example:

  • Do new editors here forget to sign? (I assume the answer is 'yes'.)
  • Do they have trouble finding the "Add topic" tab?
  • Is there another system that works better for them?

In short, what problems do you think they should be solving with the next set of updates? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 7 okt 2020 18:59 (CEST)

Signing is similar to reactions, new users tend to forgot more but it happens to both. What I see happening is two-fold: veteran users editing the last section, even now the last section also has an 'add section' button, and not at least empty the summary, so it looks like they replied to the last section making it a bit confusing. And secondly, new users either editing the full page and just add their text to the top, or just editing the first section, and either adding their text before or after the section, and of course without a proper heading. For these users I indeed think it is about not finding the 'add section' button. But both these are not easy to solve, priority I think should be to be able to use the reply tool to start a new section, with the option for automatic signing and easy pinging users. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 8 okt 2020 10:05 (CEST)
@JKlein (WMF), you'll want to see Akoopal's points. The one about using the wrong edit summary drives me nuts is something I've seen a lot of at the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 12 okt 2020 19:54 (CEST)

New screenshots for starting new discussions[brontekst bewerken]

Help met het vertalen naar uw taal

Hello, all. Please look at the new designs for starting a new discussion. This will help people (especially new editors) start a ==New section== on a talk page.

These are the first designs. There will be changes. Your feedback will determine which changes are made. Please share your thoughts, and invite other editors to join these discussions. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 2 nov 2020 20:11 (CET)

"Een nieuwe discussie starten"[brontekst bewerken]

Wat is precies de bedoeling van dit kopje en de (enigszins kreupele) zin eronder? Encycloon (overleg) 3 dec 2020 22:24 (CET)

Is dit de bedoeling? Encycloon (overleg) 3 dec 2020 22:28 (CET)
Dat ziet er een stuk leesbaarder uit inderdaad. Volgens de 'Deployment status' tabel is de 'New discussion tool' nog nergens uitgerold, maar in oktober was er al wel een eerste versie klaar om te testen. (Ik heb er nog niet naar gekeken, het is wat langs me heen gegaan.) Met vriendelijke groeten — Mar(c).[overleg] 3 dec 2020 23:48 (CET)
"Om te testen" is misschien wat voorbarig (ik heb zo snel even niet kunnen vinden of 'wij' dat ook al ergens kunnen doen). Ik heb de projectpagina wat aangepast om de grotere lijnen van het project wat duidelijker weer te geven. Met vriendelijke groeten — Mar(c).[overleg] 4 dec 2020 01:28 (CET)

Van opt-in naar opt-out[brontekst bewerken]

De Arabische, Hongaarse, en Franse Wikipedia, de drie andere projecten in de pilot voor overleghulpmiddelen zijn reeds over van opt-in naar opt-out. Dat wil zeggen, de reply tool is standaard beschikbaar voor iedereen, en is via voorkeuren uit te zetten op die drie andere wikis. De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is nog niet zover kennelijk. Een A/B test is aangekondigd waarbij willekeurig de helft van de gebruikers de tool aangeboden gaan krijgen. Wanneer de gemeenschap hier de nieuwe tool als opt-out wil, dan kan dat. Met de reply tool, of reageerfunctie kan met klikken op "Reageer" gemakkelijk een reactie op een bestaande discussiebijdrage reageren. De ontwikkelaars zijn bezig met het ontwikkelen van van een voorziening om een nieuwe discussiebijdrage te beginnen ("kopje toevoegen"). Zelf zie ik het niet als een belemmering om de reageerfunctie op opt-out te zetten terwijl er nog gewerkt wordt aan het ontwikkelen van een voorziening om een nieuwe discussiebijdrage te beginnen. Ik houd van kleine stapjes veranderen, en accepteren dat het niet in een keer perfect is. Hoe is dat voor jullie? Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 12 dec 2020 13:48 (CET)

Praktisch gezien lijkt me dat niet echt handig, tenzij er gemeenschapsbrede vraag naar is; dat gaat namelijk in tegen de uitleg die hier is gegeven (en misschien dat het de testresultaten ook beïnvloedt als je een andere variabele tegelijk ook aanpast?). Beter wachten tot na de A/B-test wat mij betreft. Encycloon (overleg) 12 dec 2020 13:55 (CET)
Tja, aan de ene kant is een A/B-test wel wat anders dan het 'klakkeloos' voor iedereen aanzetten, wat afgelopen zomer geopperd leek te worden. En zo'n onderzoek heeft wel de potentie om erg nuttig te zijn voor de verdere ontwikkeling, denk ik. Aan de andere kant voelt dit als een manier om dat 'klakkeloos aanzetten' toch in twee stappen door te drukken: voor de helft van de gebruikers gaat de tool feitelijk al naar opt-out, en wat er na die 'several weeks' dat de test zal duren gaat gebeuren, is me niet duidelijk. Wordt dat 'aanzetten' voor de betreffende helft dan weer teruggedraaid? Dat lijkt me voor degenen die inmiddels aan de tool gewend zijn geraakt erg bevreemdend. Maar het is ook vreemd om die halve overgang naar opt-out nog voor onbepaalde tijd te laten hangen, mochten wij en/of het dev-team tot de conclusie komen dat opt-out nog geen goed idee is.
Mijn tijd en energie voor WP is de laatste maanden helaas een stuk minder geworden, en de ontwikkelingen rond de Discussion Tools heb ik nauwelijks meer gevolgd. Dat betekent dat ik geen idee heb of er met mijn eerdere bezwaren iets is gedaan, en ook dat ik het op dit moment niet zie zitten om in m'n eentje te gaan spitten en/of doorvragen om te kunnen beoordelen op die A/B-test nu wel of niet alsnog te vroeg komt. Ad vond en vindt het prima, ik heb er zo mijn bedenkingen over vanwege diverse bugs (zoals nu weer WP:SHEIC#Sjabloon:Hola) en de genoemde mankementen – hoofdzakelijk (1) van dé twee types discussiebijdragen (starten en reageren; beide types zijn voor nieuwe gebruikers enorm gebaat bij dit soort tools, en wezenlijk verschillen ze maar weinig) er maar eentje leveren in een opt-out-pakket, en (2) het té stilletjes updaten van een té groot deel van de pagina (waar nogal wat haken en ogen aan zitten) – en verder zijn er afgelopen zomer op deze pagina, en vorige week in de kroeg, geen meningen van anderen gekomen (welke kant de vlag op zusterprojecten op wappert weet ik niet). Ik pleit absoluut niet voor "pas opt-out als het perfect is"; ik pleit voor een solide basis, en de mankementen en bugs komen op mij over als een te wankele basis. (Ik lees bovendien in mw:Talk pages project/replying#Metrics dat de A/B-test gedaan zal worden ná het afronden van "Analysis 2", maar aan die "Analysis 2" lijkt volgens diezelfde tekst nog niet eens begonnen te zijn.)
Met vriendelijke groeten — Mar(c).[overleg] 13 dec 2020 10:01 (CET)

A/B test for the Reply tool in January[brontekst bewerken]

I posted a quick update on the archived discussion from the De Kroeg (just in case anyone goes looking there for the date), but here's the real message:

The A/B test will start in January 2021, probably during the first week. Setting up these tests is a bit fiddly, and it's taken a little longer than I had hoped. The first attempt will be in the first week of January. I say "attempt", because sometimes it doesn't work on the first try. So people will probably see it around January 5, but if not then, then another day soon after. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 18 dec 2020 18:58 (CET)

It is about to start soon isn't it? @Whatamidoing (WMF) Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 26 jan 2021 17:06 (CET)
It's supposedly started at idwiki, which is being used as a test case for the software setup. However, the (lack of) use at idwiki has not made me confident that it's working correctly. They're double-checking. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 27 jan 2021 03:21 (CET)
The best guess now is Thursday, 4 February. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 29 jan 2021 19:11 (CET)
Thursday is now possible but a little doubtful. The code will reach the servers on Thursday, but if it needs to be double-checked (again), then that may take a few days, so it might appear the following week.
I apologize for these seemingly endless changes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 1 feb 2021 23:50 (CET)

Is it just me...?[brontekst bewerken]

Hi,

I've been noticing the reply tool making mistakes with the depth of the reply, like here. And the preview has gone? Why isn't this available any more? It was such a nice addition. Ciell need me? ping me! 29 dec 2020 23:14 (CET) Pinging @Whatamidoing (WMF):

I still have a preview. Encycloon (overleg) 29 dec 2020 23:20 (CET)
Ah yes: in source mode, it's still there. Ciell need me? ping me! 29 dec 2020 23:28 (CET)
Ciell, are you seeing that on some pages, but not others? If so, then there's probably something unusual in the page's formatting. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 30 dec 2020 05:51 (CET)
I don't see it in the preview, but I think it happens every time I use the reply-tool. Ciell need me? ping me! 30 dec 2020 10:19 (CET)
But now it didn't. Interesting. Ciell need me? ping me! 30 dec 2020 10:19 (CET)
@Whatamidoing (WMF), Ciell: Based on my impression of when such 'indentation level mistakes' happen, this issue may be connected to improperly signed comments earlier in the discussion thread (and/or 'wrong' indentation levels earlier in the thread?). An example where it happened to me is this one; note the lack of a 'reply' link behind the 2 dec 2020 15:52 comment. Clicking the 'reply' link behind the 2 dec 2020 17:51 comment (also on the page's state before I replied and on the current page) puts the reply widget at the wrong indentation level, but clicking the 'reply' link behind my 2 dec 2020 18:03 comment (before as well as after I fixed the indentation of my comment) puts the widget at the correct indentation level: one level deeper than my comment.
I wasn't able to recreate such 'misplacement' of the reply widget in Ciell's example though. Because of the quick succession of comments in that case, Ciell may have clicked the 29 dec 2020 22:36 comment's 'reply' link (the 22:39 and 22:41 comments could have been posted between opening the page and publishing the comment with the image)?
P.S. When I notice that the reply widget opens at the wrong indentation level, I usually fix that by putting a : in front of each text line (I always use source mode). This means I can't trace back easily many of the times I notice the issue.
With kind regards — Mar(c).[overleg] 6 jan 2021 23:41 (CET)
Mar(c), you're probably right. Ciell, looking at this error, I'm going to bet that you will encounter this problem in every thread that Zanaq posts in, because the signature doesn't link to any "normal" user page. The custom signature system doesn't treat links to subpages as being equivalent to links directly to the user page, talk page, or Special:Contributions.
According to this report, there are 18 (currently active) editors at the Dutch Wikipedia whose signatures will not be recognized by the Reply tool (and/or have HTML-type problems). mw:New requirements for user signatures/Help has the information (only in English) about how to fix most of these. Do you think someone here would be willing to contact these 18 editors to let them know about the problem? I'm willing to make the request, if you can tell me the right person/page to post it on, but I think it's likely to be more effective if the situation is explained to the individual editors in Dutch. Technical problems can be complicated enough for most people, and trying to figure it out in a foreign language sounds even worse. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 7 jan 2021 01:09 (CET)
Hello Whatamidoing, thanks for the quick reply! A couple of things. Yes, the functioning of the reply tool is hindered by problematic signatures in a few ways. But the specific issue here is mainly caused by errors in the implementation: there is nothing wrong with the comment being replied to, so the reply tool should be able to figure out the indentation level of that comment and simply add one extra indentation level. I know that it's more complex than I put it here, but I also know by now that the implementation of the Discussion Tools feature is way more complex than it needs to be (and this simple bug proves that again). The user you mention has been given directions how to 'fix' his signature, to which he responded positively, but never actually changed his signature. I don't know the reason, but although his 'non-cooperation' is annoying to reply tool users, I kinda appreciate it because it helps in discovering flaws like this in the development.
(I hope that my attempt to make my point clear didn't make it too blunt. The latter is not my intention!)
With kind regards — Mar(c).[overleg] 7 jan 2021 02:58 (CET)
It is my position that the software should support these signatures and that WMF can pay some developers to make this happen. It does not seem to difficult and a better way to spend money than on marketing agencies for some nonsensical rebranding. I will only change it if it is enforced. — Zanaq (?) 7 jan 2021 10:36 (CET)
Your analysis could be right Mar(c): here it happened to me again, and there is indeed a template in the conversation, which was added because of an unsigned comment by an anon. Ciell need me? ping me! 7 jan 2021 18:25 (CET)
I think it's a consequence of the "mixed list level" discussion. If a signature isn't recognized, then the reply will be placed at the wrong level.
@Zanaq, the change to custom signatures will be enforced "eventually", possibly next year. Enforcement will merely make your custom signature be ignored, and you'll get the standard one instead. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 8 jan 2021 22:07 (CET)
@Ciell: Well, it's not the template but the missing timestamp there. {{afz|name or IP|timestamp}} produces a valid signature (with the 'reply' link showing), so the issue shouldn't occur then. See below; click the 'reply' link behind my signature to see at which level the reply widget appears (so no need to publish the reply).
@Whatamidoing (WMF): You kinda lost me now.
  • Why should the indentation level of a reply to a correctly indented and correctly signed comment be affected by the comment preceding that comment (i.e. being one level less deep)?
  • And with "mixed list level" discussion, are you referring to comments that contain (or actually: end with) an ordered/unordered list, and how replies to such comments should be treated? If that's the case: Currently, the auto-signature is placed at the end of the last list item (so within the list) when the comment ends with a list. My advice is to put the auto-signature below the list (on a new line) in those cases, which is good practice in the wiki discussion environment (I guess in most use cases of lists in comments), and may take away some complexities in the calculation of the indentation level.
With kind regards (← also kinda needed —just putting four tildes there is another option— to force my signature to appear below the bullet list. ;-) — Mar(c).[overleg] 9 jan 2021 02:10 (CET)
When the software can't identify the signature, then it thinks that this:
Hi Mar(c). —Me, with bad signature
:What do you want? —You, with good signature
is the same as
Hi Mar(c).
:What do you want? —You, with good signature
The "correct" indentation level depends on what you think should happen with a mixed-level conversation: Should my reply line up with your first line or with the bullets? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 12 jan 2021 23:43 (CET)

Invalid signature[brontekst bewerken]

Some comment with an invalid signature (without timestamp). Because of that, this comment affects the indentation of a reply to the next comment. – De voorgaande bijdrage werd geplaatst door 192.168.1.1 (overleg · bijdragen)

Some reply with a valid signature (and correct indentation). Clicking the 'reply' link behind this reply places the reply widget at the same (i.e. wrong) indentation level.
position of the reply widget Nee  ... Mar(c).[overleg] 9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET) ... after clicking this 'reply' link

Valid signature[brontekst bewerken]

Some comment with a valid signature. – De voorgaande bijdrage werd geplaatst door 192.168.1.1 (overleg · bijdragen) 9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET)

Some reply with a valid signature (and correct indentation). Clicking the 'reply' link behind this reply places the reply widget at the correct indentation level (one 'deeper').
–––↓ position of the reply widget Ja  ... Mar(c).[overleg] 9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET) ... after clicking this 'reply' link

"New Discussion Tool" - een nieuwe discussie starten met de reageerfunctie[brontekst bewerken]

Je kunt de nieuwe tool hier uitproberen met https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen?dtenable=1 en dan klikken op "Kopje toevoegen". Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 26 jan 2021 17:05 (CET)

@Ad Huikeshoven, if all goes well, the mw:Talk pages project/New discussion Beta Feature will finally appear around 19:00–20:00 UTC tomorrow. The code for who gets it automatically and who shouldn't (=most people) is a bit more complex than usual, so please ping me if you find problems. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 17 feb 2021 18:54 (CET)
Will this be an extra beta-function or integrated in the current reply-tool? Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 17 feb 2021 20:20 (CET)
It will be integrated into the current one.
I think. It turns out that we need to clear things with Analytics, so that we don't mess up the A/B test. Maybe when I tell you something will happen, you should assume that it will always take longer than that. ;-)
You can use it right now if you use the old ?dtenable=1 trick, if you are running a user script (see the top of m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/global.js), or if you are editing at arwiki, cswiki, or huwiki (who aren't in the A/B test, and who have the updated Beta Feature). Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 19 feb 2021 20:56 (CET)

Top posting and two-line signatures[brontekst bewerken]

Do any pages here (or anywhere else) prefer "top posting" (your new message goes at the top of the page, not at the end of the page)?

Does anyone have a custom signature that goes on two lines? Is this ever a good thing? Imagine, for example, that I signed my message like this:

Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg)

27 jan 2021 03:23 (CET)

Do you know anyone who does this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 27 jan 2021 03:23 (CET)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) Yes, there are some pages where new messages go on top, mainly request pages, where the discussion tool is still relevant because there can be discussion on the request. An example is WP:VPB. Also on those request pages there might be a 'done' section, so completely to the bottom is as if you archive. There are more request pages where you do put the request in the bottom, but above the 'done' section as well. Most request pages for moderators, linked from WP:VPM are like that.
For the 2 line signature, I don't know of any cases, and I think it will not be appreciated here. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 28 jan 2021 00:41 (CET)
Wat is het verschil tussen een 'gewone handtekening' en een '2 line signature'? Er zijn wel verschillende gebruikers die bv een lange wikicode gebruiken voor kleurtjes, maar dat lijkt hier niet te worden bedoeld? Ciell need me? ping me! 28 jan 2021 12:19 (CET)
2-line = 2 regels, dus een handtekening met een lijnovergang erin waardoor er altijd een nieuwe regel komt. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 28 jan 2021 14:57 (CET)
@Akoopal, there's no "New section" tab at WP:VPB. Is that typical for such pages? Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 29 jan 2021 19:15 (CET)
@Whatamidoing (WMF) In the top box, there is a link 'een verzoek toevoegen' which translates to 'add a request'. That will do an edit of the first section. There is a comment 'please add a new request directly below here' for this one. Other pages also have the same.
Another tricky part with these request pages is that because the 'new request' and 'handled requests' are on heading level 2, the requests themselves need to be level 3, so the general add section doesn't work. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 30 jan 2021 00:15 (CET)
Thanks. The "New Discussion" tool should not interfere. It won't be used in that situation, but it won't break the page. I think that "not breaking stuff" is the best we can hope for at this stage. It might be possible, in the future, to expand the tool to handle those pages. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 5 feb 2021 02:50 (CET)
It will likely require to be able to give parameters to the 'section=new', like &level=3&section=1&location=[top|bottom], and then have a custom link/button in the header to suit the local customs. But I can imagine that that is not the first priority for the team. But just as a suggestion for a potential interface. Etersheim - Etersheimer Braakmolen met zeilen.jpg Akoopal overleg. 7 feb 2021 15:48 (CET)

Start A/B test[brontekst bewerken]

Morgen start de A/B test op deze wiki. De helft van de nieuwe gebruikers krijgt de reageerfunctie direct te zien, voor de andere helft is het opt in. Zie phab:T273406. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 3 feb 2021 09:42 (CET)

De resultaten worden over 6 tot 10 weken verwacht, zeg eind maart, en zullen op mediawiki.org gepubliceerd worden. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 3 feb 2021 09:52 (CET)
@Ad Huikeshoven: als ik het goed zie betreft het niet "nieuwe gebruikers", maar "gebruikers die de reageerfunctie nog niet eerder hebben gebruikt". Encycloon (overleg) 3 feb 2021 10:46 (CET)
Nieuwe gebruikers van de reageerfunctie dus :) Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 3 feb 2021 10:55 (CET)
Op die manier. Dat was voor mij wat verwarrend, aangezien "nieuwe gebruikers" ook een algemene term is. Encycloon (overleg) 3 feb 2021 10:57 (CET)
De start is uitgesteld zie phab:T273554. Ad Huikeshoven (overleg) 3 feb 2021 12:22 (CET)
This is finally happening. Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 12 feb 2021 22:10 (CET)
I'm hyped, I love it! Tina (Ping? Graag!) 13 feb 2021 22:03 (CET)
I'm glad that you like it. I do, too. (I think that only one editor in the entire movement uses it more often than I do.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (overleg) 17 feb 2021 18:52 (CET)