Talk:Talk pages project/New discussion

About this board

Timboliu (talkcontribs)

At my work we use Workplace and/ or Microsoft Teams to facilitate a dialogue. Is this somehting the Wikimedia community also is working on? So userstories are: the possibility to join a team, see the agenda of a team, etc. Regards Tim Ruijters.

TheDJ (talkcontribs)

No, MediaWiki is a wiki, not a chat platform

Timboliu (talkcontribs)

Thanks @TheDJ. The vision of Wikimedia is: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment. When I read this vision I can imagine that we also want to facilitate collaboration.

TheDJ (talkcontribs)

That is a neverending road towards feature creep. It basically means we should built opensource versions of everything just on the off chance that someone wants to use it for that purpose.

i mean if u want to built an extension that does that, go right ahead, but it will probably never be better than MS Teams/Slack and it will likely never run on a wikimedia foundation server and i wouldn’t expect the wikimedia foundation to throw any kind of resourcing in such a direction.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you'ree interested in the process of tying MediaWiki logins to a chat-like platform, then @Qgil-WMF got that done for a Discourse server. I've not heard of anyone trying with it Microsoft Teams. You might get more information from one of the third-party MediaWiki groups, such as the MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group.

Timboliu (talkcontribs)

Thanks @Whatamidoing (WMF)! I contacted the Mediawiki Stakeholders Group to learn more about their plans to facilitate the Wikimedia community with collaborative functionality. They use Elements for this. It would be great if we could integrate this with the current Mediawiki functionality. But this is probably a strategic decision. And maybe not a direction we would like to go? Regards, Tim

Pelagic (talkcontribs)

My beef with Teams, Slack, Mattermost, etc. is that they don’t have topics within a channel to organise the discussion. (Some are adding rudimentary reply or threading.) Plus, whilst the real-time focus adds immediacy, it also means be-there-or-miss-out, which isn’t great when your collaborators are spread across a wide spread of timezones.

So a Teams channel is persistent group chat, a bit like an enhanced IRC channel.

(Skype for Business (Lync) batches IMs and saves them as messages in Outlook. You don’t get topic headings, but you do get a chance that each discussion thread will only range over one or a few subjects.)

Zulip, Discourse, web forums, MW Structured Discussions, MediaWiki talk pages (!), and even (gasp) email all allow some kind of Subject or Topic heading.

Reply to "Workplace or Microsoft Teams"
Nthep (talkcontribs)

A case where neither a topic title nor a signature are needed. Frequently the first edit to article talk pages is to add project banners. These do not require either a topic title or the signature of the person adding them.

TheDJ (talkcontribs)

But then.. why would someone able to know what talk page banners are, click "New section"/"Start discussion" and not Edit/Create ?

Reply to "Article talk pages"
PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Can you think of pages where people adding new topics to them are instructed, via Edit notices or otherwise, *NOT* to sign the topics they post?


CONTEXT

We ask the above with the following in mind...

As we are currently thinking about the New Discussion Tool, people who have it enabled will notice that clicking a "New section" / "Add topic" link will lead them to the new tool. This new tool will automatically sign all sections created with it.

Before implementing the above, we would like to know if there are instances where this behavior would be disruptive.

Pppery (talkcontribs)

On the English Wikipedia, there are some substituted templates that automatically include the user's signature, and this the user shouldn't include a duplicate signature. en:Template:Please_see is one example.

Nick Moyes (talkcontribs)

Yes, at the Teahouse on en-wiki, there was recently implemented a new 'Ask a Question' button which autosigned the first post by that new editor. It was intended to avoid the issue of new editors forgetting to sign, and then making more work for Teahouse hosts if Sinebot didn't autosign the question for them. (I'm not convinced that the extra 'hidden text' that is then visible when editing - especially in mobile view - makes a new editors life any easier, and we sometimes get double signature from those who already instinctively know they need to sign their posts. See a discussion about this and screenshots here. Any help/advice to improve the coding there would probably be appreciated - especially by @Sdkb, who implemented it for us)

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

...at the Teahouse on en-wiki, there was recently implemented a new 'Ask a Question' button which autosigned the first post by that new editor. It was intended to avoid the issue of new editors forgetting to sign, and then making more work for Teahouse hosts if Sinebot didn't autosign the question for them

@Nick Moyes it's great to see your name again! You sharing the above reminds me of a related question we are seeking an answer to and I think you, and perhaps @Sdkb are well positioned to answer...

Holding the design of the form aside for a second, have y'all observed cases where newcomers use the "New section" link/tab at Wikipedia:Teahouse instead of the "Ask a question" button? If so, what mistakes do you notice them making?

The question above sits within a separate and related investigation we're doing into how the new workflow for starting a new discussion will relate to the existing "New section" affordances. This task has some more context: phab: T263710.

cc @Iamjessklein

Nick Moyes (talkcontribs)

I agree with @Sdkb (below) that the Teahouse would happily adopt any method you provided us with of posting which makes that task easier for new editors to ask questions. We don't do things just to be different, but sometimes it is really hard to put oneself in the eyes of a brand new editor - we do try!

I certainly see quite a lot of new Teahouse posts where the poster has simply clicked edit and added a brand new question to the end of a completely unrelated topic. I probably have to deal with that myself maybe twice a week, though its hard to say how many such posts are made in total and handled by other Hosts. I usually deal with that simply by adding in an anodyne header title like" ==Question==" without any berating or advising the questioner as to what they did wrong.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Eek, I'm sorry for the late reply here, @Nick Moyes. A few comments and a question in response to what you shared here, below.

...the Teahouse would happily adopt any method you provided us with of posting which makes that task easier for new editors to ask questions

This is encouraging to hear. We anticipate having an initial design proposal to share this week. Would you be open to reviewing them once we have them posted?

...new Teahouse posts where the poster has simply clicked edit and added a brand new question to the end of a completely unrelated topic.

Interesting. This is leading me to think that in the usability test we have planned, we ought to be explicit about asking newcomers what they understand the "Add topic" and "Edit" tabs to mean.

I've added this to the Phabricator task where this work will be happening: phab:T243249.

Nick Moyes (talkcontribs)

@PPelberg (WMF)Yes, I think we'd be delighted to look over anything that might ease user interaction. @Sdkb has a better practical understanding than I do of templates and script operations, but we (or you) can bring anything up for general discussion on the Teahouse Talk page if you want wider input. We've recently had quite an influx there of new 'Teahouse Hosts' who will may probably bring a fresher perspective on engaging with new users than some of the older hands. (I would also note that I was also unaware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability which, to their credit, SDKB appears to be singlehandedly lifting from the doldrums. I've now added it to my watchlist.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think we'd be delighted to look over anything that might ease user interaction...we (or you) can bring anything up for general discussion on the Teahouse Talk page if you want wider input.

Wonderful! Would you be up for posting an invitation for feedback at the Teahouse? I'm thinking it will be helpful for this to come from a familiar "face."

If this sounds good to you, please let me know if there is particular information/language you think would be helpful to have from beyond what we're planning to share (see below).


New Discussion Tool feedback

Below is a list of what we plan to include in the post we make on mw.org inviting people to share feedback about the New Discussion Tool mockups:

  • Mockups showing the proposed design
  • Mockups showing the current "Add topic" experience/workflow
  • The specific feedback questions we are seeking peoples' input on/answers to
  • The scope of changes we considered for this round of mockups (e.g. we didn't focus on the initial call to action in this iteration)
Sdkb (talkcontribs)

They do indeed sometimes use that button, or the general "edit" button, which can cause problems. You might be interested in this discussion.

I'd add the caveat, though (and this is sort of related to my reply to Nick), that the en-WP Teahouse is a very non-standard space. It's non-standard because it tries to use workarounds to address the problems that make the normal way of doing things too unfriendly for beginners, but it would be better if the normal way was beginner-accessible enough that it could just be adopted there (i.e. what you're trying to do). So in most regards it's not the best place to use as precedent for making project-wide decisions.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

...en-WP Teahouse is a very non-standard space. It's non-standard because it tries to use workarounds to address the problems that make the normal way of doing things too unfriendly for beginners, but it would be better if the normal way was beginner-accessible enough that it could just be adopted there (i.e. what you're trying to do)

Mmm, this is helpful context, @Sdkb and we agree. We are designing this new workflow/tool to be, as you described, "beginner-accessible."

As I mentioned to Nick above, would you be open to reviewing the design approaches we are considering taking for this new discussion tool once we post them on-wiki this week?

You might be interested in this discussion.

This is great; would it be accurate for me to understand you starting this particular conversation as a response to you observing newcomers face the following challenges?

  • Newcomers are not clear which call to action ("Edit," "Add topic" or "Ask a question") they ought to use to ask the question they came to ask.
  • It can be difficult for newcomers to post questions that comply with conventions considering 2 out of the 3 potential workflows ("Edit" and "Add topic") do not offer them any kind of guidance.
Sdkb (talkcontribs)
PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Awesome and woah, WikiProject_Usability, this is the first I've heard of this project. You sharing the mockups there would be wonderful, thank you! cc @JKlein (WMF).

By the way, I'm not sure if you saw, but I updated the comment above [i] with an additional question for you.


---

i. https://w.wiki/itP

Sdkb (talkcontribs)

I'd say yes, those are both accurate descriptions of problems newcomers face at the Teahouse.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Understood, okay. Thank you for confirming.

Now, in response to the two issues you've highlighted here:

1. Newcomers are not clear which call to action ("Edit," "Add topic" or "Ask a question") they ought to use to ask the question they came to ask.

I've added this issue to the ticket [i] where we are accumulating the challenges people, across experiences level, face with how the actions, activity and content on talk pages are currently presented.

2. It can be difficult for newcomers to post questions that comply with conventions considering 2 out of the 3 potential workflows ("Edit" and "Add topic") do not offer them any kind of guidance.

To address the above, we're currently thinking about doing the following:

For people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled (eventually, we anticipate this tool be enabled for all newcomers by default), clicking on the "Add topic" will initiate the New Discussion Tool which, ideally, will lead people who are new to add new topics in ways that comply with wiki conventions (e.g. topics are signed, topic titles are defined and the entirety of the post is appended to the bottom of the page).

In parallel, we'll see in usability testing [ii] whether people seeking to start new conversation become distracted/confused by the "Edit" call to action. If they do, we're thinking we can explore drawing more attention to the "New topic" (exact copy TBD) affordance as part of the talk page "visual enhancements" work I mentioned above. [i]

If anything above prompts new thoughts or questions, we'll be keen to hear.

---

i. phab: T249579#6580475

ii. phab: T243249#6580445

Sdkb (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the ping, @Nick Moyes. Templates that autosign are basically just a patchwork fix to the larger problem of discussion pages being too complicated for beginners to easily engage with. The new discussion tool being developed here will hopefully obviate the need for that sort of patchwork fix by addressing the more fundamental issue.

ESanders (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Nick Moyes, @Pppery: Thanks for these. The tool will prevent duplicate signatures, so these cases should be ok. To clarify, we are looking for workflows where any signature at the end of the comment is undesirable.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Signatures are at least unnecessary on some pages, e.g., w:en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. I'm not sure anyone would complain if the comments were signed, though.

If you're starting an RFC at enwiki, then you might prefer a signature that includes the date only. A very long time ago, RFCs at the English Wikipedia were supposed to be dated but unsigned. I don't know what other wikis' practices are. @Gnom, is an unsigned discussion ever a good idea at the German-language Wikipedia? @Koavf, can you think of a wiki where editors prefer to have a new ==Section== for discussion started with no signature?

Koavf (talkcontribs)

None come to mind.

Gnom (talkcontribs)

Hi, I have to say I don't know where that would be the case.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Pppery, @Nick Moyes, @Sdkb, @Koavf and @Gnom: we appreciate you putting thought to this.

It sounds like as far as everyone here is concerned, we're not currently aware of pages/contexts where it would be disruptive for the new sections posted there to contain their authors' signatures.

I've represented as much in the Phabricator ticket where this ticket grew out from: T262313#6490050.


Note: the above is not meant to suggest our quest for cases is complete!

Ottawahitech (talkcontribs)

@PPelberg (WMF)

I see this:

>This initiative sits within the Talk pages project, our teams larger effort to help contributors, across experience levels, communicate more easily on Wikipedia using talk pages. To accomplish this, we are building upon the Talk pages consultation 2019, and existing community conventions, to evolve existing wikitext talk pages.

Going up a level I see:

>It contains information about the goals of this work, the past efforts that have influenced it and why evolving talk pages is a priority right now.

(however the word goal appears only once in the document - in the introduction and nowhere else)

What I do not see is a document explaining the wmfs strategy in regards to improving talkpages: what is the overall purpose of this project, what are the timelines for implementation, which wmf-wikis are affected, etc.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The overall purpose is: to make it easier to participate in discussions.

The timeline is: Finish this year.

The wikis affected are: all of them. Eventually, all WMF wikis and most non-WMF third-party MediaWiki installations will likely want to use this.

Dreamy Jazz (talkcontribs)

A case where adding the signature of an editor is not helpful is when manually archiving something. For example, when I am clerking for ArbCom on enwiki I will use the new section link to create a section which then contains the archived request. This shouldn't have my signature at the end as I'm not making a comment when archiving, but simply copying verbatim to a talk page so that it's archived. Pinging @PPelberg (WMF) as they said they were looking for use cases where signature addition would not be appropriate. This, however, is such a small use case that I think the clerk team could always adapt to just using wikitext editing to create the new section (instead of relying on the new section link).

My thought was that the edit interface could have a tickbox only shown to users who meet a certian condition which allows the removal of the users signature but defaults to adding it. This condition could be having a user right or alternatively having a preference set. This would prevent inexperienced users from accidentally or mistakenly clicking the disable signature option, but would allow users who understand when and when not to sign to not append the signature when manually archiving.

Dreamy Jazz (talkcontribs)
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Matma Rex, if I copy someone else's message to the correct talk page, what happens to the proposed [thank] button? Does it just fail to work, because there's no signature in the comment that aligns with the page history?

Matma Rex (talkcontribs)

I don't know, I think we haven't even gotten to the point where we'd consider this yet. (Did you mean to ask this question in some different topic? I don't understand why it came up here.)

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

It came up here, because Dreamy Jazz (and all the enwiki ArbCom clerks) spend a lot of time rearranging pages. People frequently post things in the wrong place. If it's just moving the comment to a different place on the same page, I would expect the thank tool to find the original; if you move the comment to a different page, then I would expect it to get confused.

Perhaps it is a use case to remember for that magical future.

Reply to ""Do not sign""
Sdkb (talkcontribs)
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Yes, this is possible. I'm pretty sure that @JKlein (WMF) is planning to do this.

Since the tool is not widely used at the English Wikipedia, this might be a little early to update the documentation. Also, would a screenshot of the whole page make more sense?

Sdkb (talkcontribs)

I want to add it more as a decorative element than an instructional image, similar to here (I don't think w:MOS:PERTINENCE really applies to the help tutorial).

Reply to "Empty talk page image?"

Question: red link experience

26
PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

What complications can you see there being from clicking on a red-linked talk page and seeing a page that looks like this?

Design of the initial talk page empty state design. More here.

One thought that comes to mind: for Senior Contributors who are wanting to add a template like en:Template:WikiProject_Biography to a new article, they will now need to make two clicks (1. Click red link and then 2. Click Create source) instead of one click (1. Click red link, notice the editor opens).


Clarification: people will be able to opt-out this experience by adjusting their settings in Special:Preferences.


Context: we ask the above as we are working on the initial implementation of the empty talk page experience that is intended to ease the confusion Junior Contributors experience when clicking on a link to a talk page that has not yet been created. [1][2]

Wedhro (talkcontribs)

IMO senior contributors just want to get access to regular editing tools as seamlessly as possible, while juniors' expectations are based on social networks, which are often as immediate as directly typing your message in an already selected box and then confirming (single click/tap). So an introductory page or any kind of tutorial seems counter-intuitive in both cases.

Therefore my suggestion is to present empty talk pages as usual to senior contributors (based on user group and/or preferences), while juniors clicking on a red link don't get the full edit page but just the same box they get when they click "reply", so they don't even have to click a button to start editing and they're only presented the few tools they really need.

And, maybe, sysops should be able to customize the messages that appear above and below the edit box by user group, for example MediaWiki:Talkpagetext-junior would only appear to users who are not in senior groups or have not opted-out of the simplified talk page edit box, so they could be presented a simpler warning or anything else sysops think they should be presented.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

I don’t think junior and senior contributors can programmatically be told apart: I consider myself a senior contributor, even when I edit a wiki where I have few edits so far, no extra groups and few to no changed preferences. Also a junior contributor may have a lots of edits, and may have changed quite some preferences (e.g. with the help of a first steps guide).

Wedhro (talkcontribs)

So maybe an opt-out option in preferences would work better because the system would assume you're a junior contributor unless you state otherwise.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

Opt-out is already possible: you can turn off the New Discussion Tool (it’s not mentioned in the first PPelberg’s comment above, but it is in the linked status update). However, opt-out means that we still need to care about the probably many senior editors who haven’t opted out of the NDT.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I'm glad you mentioned this, @Tacsipacsi; I've updated the original post to note that people will be able to opt-out of the experience we are talking about here.

TheDJ (talkcontribs)

I can see issues with tools like Twinkle etc, which automatically post and create talk pages when handing out warnings.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I'm glad you called this out, @TheDJ. A resulting question for you and a comment...

Question: Would it be accurate for us to think Twinkle, and the other tools like it that you have in mind, use the API to save edits?

If Twinkle and these other tools do use the API, then they will be compatible with the experience we're designing.

Comment: If a tool uses the edit form to save edits then it may not be compatible. If a turns out NOT to be compatible, we think this could be fixed in a relatively straightforward way by having said tool add &dtenable=0  to the URL it uses.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

I don’t know how DiscussionTools works, but it should probably handle only &redlink=1 URLs. Twinkle et al., in contrast, has no reason to append that to its URLs.

Sdkb (talkcontribs)

Overall, I like the new empty talk page message quite a bit. It's a lot more streamlined than the old one that used w:Template:No article text, which had way too much.

One situation to watch out for is talk pages that previously existed but were deleted—for those, information should be shown from the deletion log.

I also think there should be a different help page link for English—w:Help:Introduction to talk pages seems better than w:Help:Talk pages. I've suggested that change.

PPelberg (WMF) (talkcontribs)

We appreciate you reviewing the experience and coming by to share this feedback, @Sdkb. Comments in-line below...

One situation to watch out for is talk pages that previously existed but were deleted—for those, information should be shown from the deletion log.

Great spot! I do not think we explicitly designed for this case. I've made a note in Phabricator for us to consider it.

Question: does this page contain the deletion log information you were wanting to make sure was represented within the empty state of talk page that previously existed and were deleted?

Overall, I like the new empty talk page message quite a bit. It's a lot more streamlined than the old one that used w:Template:No article text...

@JKlein (WMF) will be pleased to hear this.

Sdkb (talkcontribs)

Yep, the "02:11, 18 April 2012 Hazard-SJ talk contribs deleted page Talk:Cat communication (Mass deletion of pages added by 109.194.136.216)" is what I was referring to. There's probably a way to package it better, but the information is important (particularly for experienced editors, but also for beginners; if a page was deleted, there might be a reason not to create it that we should communicate). For talk pages, this is less important than for subject pages, since I can't think of too many cases where the talk doesn't just follow the subject page, but if you're thinking about eventually expanding this new feature to blank article pages, it'll definitely be important.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The text (and therefore the links) can be customized locally by any interface admin. Most wikis don't have any page about talk pages, so the default will probably have to be a help page on Meta-Wiki.

Nthep (talkcontribs)

Overall I like the NDT but as a "senior" (how I hate this term) contributor I don't like the redlink experience. I know what talk pages are for, so I don't appreciate the extra step in the workflow in starting a talk page. Any way of bypassing it without disabling the entire tool?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Are you frustrated by the extra click more frequently on User_talk: pages or article Talk: pages (or some other namespace)?

Nthep (talkcontribs)

Any, talk pages have the same function in any namespace.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I'm usually annoyed by not having the extra click for User_talk: pages, because when I visit a red-linked user's pages, I almost always want to see a script that runs on user pages, and not to create the page.

Nthep (talkcontribs)

User talk are, for me, slightly more annoying than other namespaces, for the opposite reason, if I'm there it is normally to create the page; whether that is manually, Twinkle or something else.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you're using Twinkle, it shouldn't create any extra clicks for you.

Nthep (talkcontribs)

No it doesn't but manual creation does. The point remains the same though, the extra click is unnecessary for "senior" editors and some way of bypassing it is desirable.

TheDJ (talkcontribs)

This is another of those cases where I'm not so sure about that... "Don't ever change something to my flow unless I can disable it" is not a sustainable model for progress

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

On User_talk: pages, volunteer-me is usually trying to figure out how to "undo" the automatic opening of the wikitext editor, so I can see the non-existent page. (I default to the 2017 wikitext editor, which behaves a little differently here.) At the English Wikipedia, I rarely encounter a non-existent Talk: page. It has almost always been created with a couple of WikiProject banners in it.

Nthep (talkcontribs)

Article talk pages are 50/50 for me between new and existing. User talk pages I'm not bothered, in most cases, about seeing the non-existent page first.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I had a look at your contributions to get an idea of the scale of the problem. I found (looking only at page creations this calendar year, not all edits):

  • User_talk: pages – 72 created by script and 3 manual page creations
  • Talk: pages for articles – 5 pages created to add banners (I use a script for that)
  • Draft_talk: page – 1 page manually creation

That's about 90% script-based and 10% manual page creations. Do you think your numbers are typical for experienced editors?

Nthep (talkcontribs)

Probably about right, vandal fighters might have a higher script based %.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Volunteer-me had a lower script-based page-creation percentage, but I forgot to write down the numbers yesterday, and now I can't remember them.

On an absolute scale, you're creating an average of one talk page per month manually, and I think I was manually creating one talk page every couple of months.

Reply to "Question: red link experience"
Mys 721tx (talkcontribs)

The new discussion tool will automatically apply --~~~~ as the signature. Is there any way to customize the leading characters? If not, please add this function.

Nthep (talkcontribs)

Why? Frankly I'd be in favour of abolishing all signature customisation to keep them simple, readable, and drama-free.

Matěj Suchánek (talkcontribs)

See Topic:Wdiyu7v2s97yqqfh. Basically, you can have it changed for everybody on the wiki, you can add them manually or you can change it in your signature.

Reply to "Custom signature"
Chaetodipus (talkcontribs)

I noticed while using this out on en.wikinews it states "...you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL."; en.wikinews, and other Wikinewses use CC BY 2.5 instead. Is there a way to change this locally?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Incorrect license"
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

It appears that sometime this month, the 25,000th new discussion was created using this tool.

Reply to "Milestone"

Linking to the add topic tab

3
Wedhro (talkcontribs)

Since many people don't seem to notice the add topic tab I wonder if it is somehow possible to insert a link that opens the interface for a new topic from anywhere.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)
This post was hidden by Wedhro (history)
Reply to "Linking to the add topic tab"

Talk page creation

3
Summary by Tacsipacsi
Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

Adding new topic works quite well on already existing talk pages, but it should also work on red talk pages. Most of the Wikipedia articles have got red/nonexistent talk page, but the new topic button does open the old wikitext editor even with this new beta feature turned on.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

It is planned, but it is not straightforward how it should work. See phab:T270323 for the design task. (By the way, the interesting thing is that “most of the Wikipedia articles have got red/nonexistent talk page” isn’t true in all languages, for example 97% of talk pages exist on enwiki.)

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you haven't seen any of the designs yet, take a look at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F34533022 This design is obviously for desktop/large screens; Jess (the designer) has posted other options for mobile in related tasks.

One of the questions on my mind is: Should people be encouraged to create their own User_talk: page? For a normal talk page, a newcomer needs to know that it's a place to start a conversation. For someone else's User_talk: page, you need to know that this is a place to start a conversation with that person. But what do you need to know about your own (non-existent) User_talk: page?

Reply to "Talk page creation"
Return to "Talk pages project/New discussion" page.