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 Glimlach. 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)