Talk:Talk pages project/Usability/Prototype

Xin chào!

Bạn có thể viết bằng ngôn ngữ của bạn. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

স্বাগতম!

আপনি বাংলা ভাষায় উত্তর লিখতে পারেন। Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: আপনার ব্যবহারকারী নাম

এই রূপ আমার ভালো লেগেছে। DeloarAkram (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We are glad to hear you like the new design, @DeloarAkram!

If there are particular ways you think these new features and designs will make using talk pages easier for you, I would value hearing what they might be :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: MS Sakib

যথেষ্ট ভালো লেগেছে। এটা কার্যকর হলে আলাপ পাতার ব্যবহার সহজতর ও বেশ কার্যকর হবে। MS Sakib (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We are glad to hear you are encouraged by the new design, @MS Sakib !

If there are particular ways you think these new features and designs will make using talk pages easier for you, I would value hearing what they might be:) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: মোঃ মারুফ হাসান24

Attractive interface and added features are so cool. I belive that, it will make our discussions and discords easier and effective than before. Maruf (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We are glad to hear you found the new design helpful, @মোঃ মারুফ হাসান24!

If there are particular ways you think these new features and designs will make using talk pages easier for you, I would value hearing what they are :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: আফতাবুজ্জামান

T309904: Revise Reply button appearance to make it less distracting on busy talk pages T245225: Implement editing specific comments

প্রোটোটাইপটি পরীক্ষা করার জন্য আপনি কি ব্যবহার করেছেন? মোবাইল ডিভাইস না ল্যাপটপ?

উভয়

প্রোটোটাইপটিতে আপনি কি অপ্রত্যাশিত কিছু খুঁজে পেয়েছেন?

না

"প্রোটোটাইপটি ব্যবহার করে দেখুন" অনুচ্ছেদে থাকা কোন ধাপগুলো আপনার কাছে কঠিন বলে মনে হয়েছে?

প্রোটোটাইপটির কোন দিকগুলো আপনার পছন্দ হয়েছে?

সবদিক ভালো লেগেছে, বিশেষ করে কতটি মন্তব্য, কতজন মন্তব্য করেছেন ও সর্বশেষ কবে মন্তব্য করা হয়েছে সেটি, মোবাইলে এটি অনেক উপকারী হবে।

প্রোটোটাইপটির কোন দিকগুলো আপনার ভালো লাগেনি বা ভিন্ন হলে ভালো হত?

পূর্ণপাঠ্য সম্পাদকে না গিয়ে প্রদান করা উত্তরটি সম্পাদনা করার সুযোগ থাকলে ভালো হত। কম্পিউটার ডিভাইসে "উত্তর দিন" বোতামটি এখন বড়, তবে অনেক আলোচনা থাকা পাতায় বারবার বড় বোতামটি দেখতে ভালো লাগে না। আবার এইও বুঝতে পারছি যে মোবাইলে আঙুল দিয়ে সঠিকভাবে ক্লিক করার জন্য বড় বোতাম দরকার। আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying out the prototype and taking the time to share the feedback you have with us, @Aftabuzzaman!

A couple of follow up questions and comments for you below.

Note: I've translated what you've written into English using Google Translate

1. Like it all, especially how many comments, how many people have commented and when was the last comment, it will be very useful on mobile.

To make it easier for people to viewing talk pages on mobile to quickly scan the talk page, we are considering showing just one pice of information beneath the discussion/section title.

With this is in mind: is there are particular piece of information (number of comments, number of people, date of last comment) that you would find most useful?

Here is a link to a prototype where we are experimenting with just showing the "Last comment" information: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/c7ed72eadd/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools.

If you have an opportunity to visit the link above and have feedback about it, I would value hearing what you have to say :)

2. It would be nice to have the opportunity to edit the answer provided without going to the full text editor.

Agreed! I have added this feedback to the place where we are tracking the work to implement the functionality you are describing. See: T245225

3. The "Reply" button on computer devices is now big, but it is not nice to see the big button repeatedly on pages that have a lot of discussion

This is helpful feedback; I have created a new ticket where we will explore options to make the "Reply" button easy for people to notice without distracting them from reading the comments present on the page: T309904 PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Dulken

T245225: Implement editing specific comments

1. i use laptop
2. you can select topics from the left
3. i dont actually see anything difficult to use in the testing
4. i like how you dont have to scroll alot and the reply button is big too
5. there should be visual editing whenever you need to edit your reply -tynjee (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Dulken – we appreciate you trying the prototype and sharing the feedback you have about it here!

A couple of comments and questions in response to what you had to say...

1. i like how you dont have to scroll alot...

Are you saying that you liked being able to use the table of contents (the box that appears on the side of your screen with the names of each section title within it) to navigate the page and see the topics being discussed on it?

2. there should be visual editing whenever you need to edit your reply

We hear you! While the Editing Team will not have time to implement this functionality during this phase of the mw:Talk pages project it is an idea we are keeping track of: phab:T254225. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1. yes
2. no idea what that is but i like your funny words magic man -tynjee (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Greatder

T282269 Make it easier to identify and understand the relationships between the threads and comments

1. Laptop
2. I hoped for a line separating nests of discussion like reddit.
3. Step 5.2. Editing comment
4. Ease of use
5. Nested discussions like reddit/hacker news would have been nice.
6. Greatder (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

দুর্ভাগ্যজনকভাবে মোবাইলে উপরের ট্যাবগুলো উপচে পরে। Greatder (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Greatder - thank you for trying out the prototype and sharing this feedback with us.

Two additional questions for you:

1. Are you able to share a screenshot of the issue you encountered with "tabs overflowing" on mobile?
2. Can you think of anyways in which this new design might make it easier for you to use talk pages, either on a mobile or desktop device? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Which mobile browser are you using? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Bromite Greatder (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a Chromium-type web browser. Thank you for telling me about this problem. I'll ask the Editing team to look into it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: মোহাম্মদ হাসানুর রশিদ

অসাধারণ সংযোজন। মোহাম্মদ হাসানুর রশিদ (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype, @মোহাম্মদ হাসানুর রশিদ

Was there anything specific you noticed/appreciated about the prototype?

Google Translate: প্রোটোটাইপটি চেষ্টা করার জন্য সময় দেওয়ার জন্য আপনাকে ধন্যবাদ, @মোহাম্মদ হাসানুর রশিদ। প্রোটোটাইপ সম্পর্কে আপনি লক্ষ্য করেছেন / প্রশংসা করেছেন এমন কিছু নির্দিষ্ট ছিল? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Rummskartoffel

T249293: Prevent reply links from showing on certain pages T245225: Implement editing specific comments

1. Neither, a desktop.
2. The interface looked different from the screenshot on Talk pages project/Usability/Prototype, notably missing the modified table of contents. I found out later that it was due to the prototype only working properly in Vector 2022, while the demo wiki was configured to use Vector 2010 by default.
3. I found it difficult to find the discussions with the most people and the most comments, because I had to scroll to each individual section and look at the information beneath its header. Editing my reply was also less easy than expected, because there was no button or link to do so with the new discussion tools; I had to do it the old-fashioned way by editing the source code of the section.
4. I like how easy it is to participate in discussions. I think this has the potential to greatly improve especially the experience for newcomers.
5. I can't think of anything right now.
6. I think this might have trouble with closed or archived sections such as w:en:WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 190#RfC: Bot to blank old IP talkpages, which should not be edited any more. The tool would need to recognise these and not show the reply button. Rummskartoffel (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Well the 'closed' sections arent technically any different than a quote unquote 'open' section, so I think #6 isn't really feasible 2600:1017:B424:E0B:798D:B22C:E416:70D2 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Rummskartoffel – thank you for trying out the prototype and sharing the experience you had with it here. Some comments and questions in response below...

The interface looked different from the screenshot on Talk pages project/Usability/Prototype, notably missing the modified table of contents. I found out later that it was due to the prototype only working properly in Vector 2022, while the demo wiki was configured to use Vector 2010 by default.

What you described sounds confusing. I'm sorry you had this experience. We're going to edit the instructions to avoid other people running into this issue.

I found it difficult to find the discussions with the most people and the most comments, because I had to scroll to each individual section and look at the information beneath its header.

Understood. I wonder: do you think you would have had an easier time identifying the discussion with the most comments in it had you been able to see the new table of contents that available in the Vector (2022) skin? You can see the latest version of the new table of contents design here.

Editing my reply was also less easy than expected, because there was no button or link to do so with the new discussion tools; I had to do it the old-fashioned way by editing the source code of the section.

We hear you on this one. We would like to be able to offer people the ability to edit specific comments. Although, this functionality is blocked on some technical work that we are not likely to have time to implement as part of this first phase of the Talk Pages Project.

I like how easy it is to participate in discussions. I think this has the potential to greatly improve especially the experience for newcomers.

This is great to hear :) In fact, the instinct you have here is accurate. Both the Reply Tool and New Topic Tools have been proven to improve the experience newcomers have participating in discussions:

• Talk pages project/Replying#Analysis 3: Impact
• Talk pages project/New discussion#Analysis 2: Impact

I think this might have trouble with closed or archived sections such as w:en:WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 190#RfC: Bot to blank old IP talkpages, which should not be edited any more. The tool would need to recognise these and not show the reply button.

Understood; creating a way for people to prevent reply links from showing on certain pages is an issue we're tracking in T249293. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): thank you for your reply! Yes, I agree that Vector 2022's TOC would have made finding the section with the most comments trivial (though admittedly I neither see myself regularly using that skin anytime soon for unrelated reasons, nor regularly having to find the largest discussion on a page).

As for archived discussions, I realise the example I provided was not ideal: I was referring not only to archive pages, but also to individual closed or archived sections, though I see this is also being tracked already in phab:T295553.

Lastly, I'm happy to hear DiscussionTools has been a success so far. Rummskartoffel (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Vector 2022's TOC would have made finding the section with the most comments trivial (though admittedly I neither see myself regularly using that skin anytime soon for unrelated reasons, nor regularly having to find the largest discussion on a page).

Understood :)

...though I see this is also being tracked already in phab:T295553.

Yes. We are planning to address this issue in the near future. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Nux

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

   Desktop.

2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?

   Icons looked a bit out of place. I mean the look&feel wasn't really wiki.

3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

   While searching for latests I actually used CTRL+F.

   Icons are good for scanning through topics, but would be more usefully to have some summary in the ToC.

4. What do you like about the prototype?

   I like the summary part of each section. Looks great. I wonder if it would work if I wouldn't sign my name... And it doesn't. I guess that is OK.

5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?

   Some summary in the ToC.

   Also that over-line (above header) is weird. Doesn't fit into wiki.

   Reply icons are kind of weird for wiki too... But I guess I would adjust.

6. (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.

   Yeah. I've kind of broke your test page by adding a few sections in one go: [1]... I admit this is weird, but could be true for pages with more then one vote. Nux (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Nux – I appreciate you trying the prototype and documenting what you thought about it. Some responses below...

Icons looked a bit out of place. I mean the look&feel wasn't really wiki.

We came to agree with the observation you made here. We have now removed the icons that had previously appeared beneath each section title heading.

If you have a moment, I'd value hearing what you think of the new design which you can see here: Talk:Talk pages project/Usability.

Icons are good for scanning through topics, but would be more usefully to have some summary in the ToC.

Can you say more about the kind of "summary" you would find useful? What information might that summary include?

So you're aware, we've updated the design of the Table of Contents so that it's easier to read and explicitly says the number of comments in each discussion: Talk pages table of contents design (8 July 2022).

I like the summary part of each section. Looks great. I wonder if it would work if I wouldn't sign my name... And it doesn't. I guess that is OK.

As you discovered, the summary part of each section will not update unless the comment you post is signed.

You raising this here led me to think, "We should share why the summary section works in this way..."

Also that over-line (above header) is weird. Doesn't fit into wiki.

I appreciate the line that appears between sections is a change. If you can imagine ways in which the line could interfere with how you use talk pages, I'd value knowing.

Reply icons are kind of weird for wiki too... But I guess I would adjust.

We hear you. In fact, in the latest design we have removed the icons that appear before the "Reply" links

Yeah. I've kind of broke your test page by adding a few sections in one go: ... I admit this is weird, but could be true for pages with more then one vote.

By "broken" are you referring to the fact that the summary information does not appear beneath/within the Here is a longer vote section?

If what I've described is what you meant, then this is by design. Sections that do not contain any signed comments will not include any summary information. Notice how after posting this comment the summary information appears beneath the aaaałaaaa aaaa section heading. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replay :).

That summary in ToC would be more useful if there would be some indication of which topic(s) were last modified. Not sure if you can easily fit that in the ToC (so not to clog it too much), but maybe just number of days since last comment...

As for the broken page, I guess that is understandable that it is hard. But then again there are reply buttons e.g. in "aaaa" section, so if you have replies I think you should have a summary. BTW. this was an anonymized, but real vote page in case you were wondering... Anyway, maybe you should add an option to force summary like when we can force ToC for some pages were generic rules don't work. As an example note that this discussion section has a subscription, but (on different vote page) there is no subscription on this section. Both sections are for users discussing stuff, adding signed comments/replies. Nux (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nux, would you please look at https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York ? The swooshy arrow icons are gone. ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: IAmChaos

T303662: Document script(s) talk page activity indicator might need to cope with

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?: Laptop
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete? none
4. What do you like about the prototype? The latest comment is an amazing addition - I would like to ask that it is ensured not to conflict with existing enwiki xTools gadget
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype? I do NOT like the larger reply button - it sticks out and is much more visually obtrusive in the flow of reading through a discussion IAmChaos (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @IAmChaos – thank you for trying out the prototype and coming here to share what you thought about it. A couple of responses below...

The latest comment is an amazing addition - I would like to ask that it is ensured not to conflict with existing enwiki xTools gadget

Two questions for you:

1) Are you referring to the "Latest comment" indicator that appears beneath the page title? The "Latest comment" indicator that appears beneath each H2 section title?

2) Can you please say more about the xTools gadget? In what way(s) could you see the "Latest comment" indicator potentially conflicting with it?

I do NOT like the larger reply button - it sticks out and is much more visually obtrusive in the flow of reading through a discussion

We hear you. What do you think of this latest design? You'll notice we've removed the arrow that had previously appeared before each "Reply" link/button. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

1 -Wow, I didn't even see the ones below each section header, you guys are doing some great stuff, I love it!

2- As for that Ive seen (usually not with mediawiki) that sometimes when things are placed in the same spot some softwares have a hard time displaying it and there is overlap, and I myself (on my home wiki) have two different script/gadget that utilize the space immediately below the page title. I'm sure you techy people know how to make conflicts resolve, but I just wanted to say something out loud.

3 - I like the new design, it appears much more inline, and looks very clean. IAmChaos (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

1 -Wow, I didn't even see the ones below each section header, you guys are doing some great stuff, I love it!

We're glad to hear you think as much :)

2- As for that Ive seen (usually not with mediawiki) that sometimes when things are placed in the same spot some softwares have a hard time displaying it and there is overlap, and I myself (on my home wiki) have two different script/gadget that utilize the space immediately below the page title. I'm sure you techy people know how to make conflicts resolve, but I just wanted to say something out loud.

Ah, I see. Can you please share links to the two gadgets you're referring to?

Reason being: I'd like to make sure we consider them as part of the testing we will be doing in T303662.

3 - I like the new design, it appears much more inline, and looks very clean.

Oh, good. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

2 -- The others are scripts not gadgets, and I don't want to force you to force compatibility with everything, but as a general concept, of things using that space; I have:

w:en:Project:Metadata gadget

w:en:User:Enterprisey/section-redir-note.js

mw:XTools#ArticleInfo gadget

I see you also subscribed me to that phab ticket, thank you for listening! IAmChaos (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing links to the gadgets you had in mind, @IAmChaos...I've added them to phab:T303662#8122152.

I see you also subscribed me to that phab ticket, thank you for listening!

You got it and thank you for sharing :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, Matthewrb, Samwilson: Please let us know if you foresee a conflict with XTools#ArticleInfo gadget. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The gadget inserts before the #contentSub element. So long as that's still in the HTML, the gadget should continue to work as it does now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a change to Vector 2022 recently that apparently removed #contentSub except for subpages. Was this related to the above discussion? The change broke the XTools gadget, which I've now fixed, but there are many thousands of other scripts and stylesheets that also reference #contentSub. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a change to Vector 2022 recently that apparently removed #contentSub except for subpages.

Thank you for flagging this, @MusikAnimal.

The change you're referring to above happened in T311421, specifically this patch. Credit to @DLynch (WMF) for tracing this.

And now there is T315639 which I think describes the experience you reported above. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! T315639 is indeed the issue I'm referring to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Yair rand

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
   • Laptop
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
   • A few things:
     • I tried clicking on the "Last comment: ..." area, expecting it to do something, like either linking to the most recent comment, or highlighting it, or at least popping out a bit more information about it (eg, the author of the comment, or a more precise timestamp). That it didn't do anything was unexpected and a little jarring, especially since the cursor didn't indicate it was plain text.
     • That after one reply was posted, all the reply buttons were greyed out and unclickable. (I assume this was a bug?)
     • I would have expected there to be some way to ping multiple users at the same time, either grouped in a template or with usernames separated by commas (as is a typical method, I think). Going through the "Mention a user" button multiple times in sequence just adds more "@"s before every user. Also, holding Ctrl while clicking options (as is occasionally a standard for multi-option selection) doesn't do anything.
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
   • None.
4. What do you like about the prototype?
   • The overall appearance is very clean, and it's pretty easy to use.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?
   • I don't like that it's making wikitext itself be outputted differently on talk pages. Having it always be that any wikitext can be safely pasted anywhere for the same output was very useful. Also, the output isn't the same on the preview as on the reading mode. I really think that the header underline should be kept, or at least something should make it very easily recognizable that it's the same type of element as those headers in the mainspace. New users should be able to easily recognize that every formatting element they learn about in one setting can also be used in any other.
   • The big blue arrows seem kind of off-brand for the "content" part of the page itself. That area is normally kept deliberately plain. I don't think it needs to be quite as far as the old "[reply]" bits, but maybe somewhere in between the two?

In general, I like the progress that this project is making. Nice work! Yair rand (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Yair rand – we appreciate you trying out the prototype and taking the time to share what you think about it here. Some comments and questions in response to what you shared below...

I tried clicking on the "Last comment: ..." area, expecting it to do something, like either linking to the most recent comment, or highlighting it, or at least popping out a bit more information about it (eg, the author of the comment, or a more precise timestamp). That it didn't do anything was unexpected and a little jarring, especially since the cursor didn't indicate it was plain text.

Great spot. We agree with you in thinking that people should be able to click on the "Latest comment..." information and, as you described, be taken to the most recent comment. In fact, the latest version of the prototype works in this way.

That after one reply was posted, all the reply buttons were greyed out and unclickable. (I assume this was a bug?)

We hear you. The issue you experienced here is a consequence of some limitations around how draft comments are saved. You can see more context about this issue in T257305.

I would have expected there to be some way to ping multiple users at the same time, either grouped in a template or with usernames separated by commas (as is a typical method, I think). Going through the "Mention a user" button multiple times in sequence just adds more "@"s before every user.

The "typical method" you referred to above...are you able to share a link to where you've seen this kind of functionality implemented before? No worries if an example doesn't come to mind.

The overall appearance is very clean, and it's pretty easy to use.

This is reassuring to hear :)

I don't like that it's making wikitext itself be outputted differently on talk pages. Having it always be that any wikitext can be safely pasted anywhere for the same output was very useful.

Can you say more about this? Where did you encounter wikitext being outputted differently from what you expected? This happening sounds unexpected to me.

The big blue arrows seem kind of off-brand for the "content" part of the page itself. That area is normally kept deliberately plain. I don't think it needs to be quite as far as the old "[reply]" bits, but maybe somewhere in between the two?

We agree with you about this. In fact, the latest designs does away with the arrows. See this screenshot. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear about the changes. :)

Re typical method for @s: See the default behaviour on Template:Reply to, which is present on many wikis, including here, Meta, ENWP, and many others.

Re different wikitext output on talk pages: I was specifically referring to the appearance of H2 elements, which are being shown with the horizontal bars above the text instead of below the text, as H2s have on content pages. Yair rand (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Re typical method for @s: See the default behaviour on Template:Reply to, which is present on many wikis, including here, Meta, ENWP, and many others.

Oh, okay! I understand now. Thank you for following up with these additional details, @Yair rand.

Re different wikitext output on talk pages: I was specifically referring to the appearance of H2 elements, which are being shown with the horizontal bars above the text instead of below the text, as H2s have on content pages.

Right. Yes, the H2 text is styled differently. Although, can you please share how the new H2 text styling is impacting how the text behaves when it is copy and pasted? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the H2 text is styled differently. Although, can you please share how the new H2 text styling is impacting how the text behaves when it is copy and pasted?

@PPelberg (WMF) as Yair said, as you said, and as I came here to say, H2 is styled differently. I am guessing that you are looking for "more" of an answer because you find it hard to imagine that is the problem being raised?

Let me try to explain it in a broader sense. The WMF tends to view Talk pages as a forum. For us Talk pages are Wikipages, they are our wiki workplace, we can and do use Talk pages for arbitrary work, we expect to be able to copy-paste article content to a talk page and have it show up exactly the same. That allows us valuable freedom to casually invent and modify workflows on the fly. We don't have to stop to think about all of the functionality and flexibility and compatibility of wikipages - we expect that as a fundamental background fact. That is our universe, and we expect the laws of physics do not randomly change. The fact that "discussion" is the most common content on Talk pages is almost incidental.

When the WMF proposes any replacement or change for Talk pages, there is a fast and critical test I preform. I go to our article for United States to grab a large and diverse sample, and I copy-paste it to Talk. I checked the preview for this on the current test wiki, with generally good results. Aside from the issue of various templates not existing on the test wiki, I only spotted a single problem. The new system clearly goes out of its way to explicitly mangle H2 headers. (Note: I use "mangle" in the broad sense of any modification from the canonical result.) It's good that "Last comment/# comments/# people" is not being added if there are no comments in a section. However the placement of horizontal bars is getting mangled. They're above the section title rather than below it. That is inconsistent and potentially confusing. H2 headers should be returned to normal, regardless of whether comments are detected in a section.

I could have written a shorter comment, but I think it valuable to keep trying to improve understanding on some of the "odd" expectations and requirements that community has. Alsee (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Alsee – I appreciate you expanding on the point @Yair rand raised above to help me get a better "grip" on what you both are describing. Some comments and questions in response below...

...valuable freedom to casually invent and modify workflows on the fly

Well put and understood! Preserving the freedom you described above has been, and continues to be, a requirement that all of the changes we are proposing as part of the Usability Improvements portion of the project meet.

However the placement of horizontal bars is getting mangled. They're above the section title rather than below it. That is inconsistent and potentially confusing.

While I appreciate that the horizontal bar appearing above section titles is different from how they appear in other contexts (e.g. the main namespace), the confusion you alluded to above is not currently clear to me...can you please say more about the confusion you imagine resulting from the horizontal bars appearing above rather than below H2 section titles?

I could have written a shorter comment, but I think it valuable to keep trying to improve understanding on some of the "odd" expectations and requirements that community has.

+1 – I'm grateful that you invested the time and effort to compose this thorough response. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that I was referring to the general mental gear-crashing/freeze up when you've seen something the same way hundreds of times, then the standard patterns are broken and your brain has to stop to figure out what you're looking at.

However with this now deployed on Meta, I can give you a better answer. I came across a page where this resulted in a particularly bad mess. I didn't foresee this particular result, and I'm betting you didn't foresee it either. In the middle of several discussion sections there was an empty section. The result was two horizontal lines in a row, like this:

Comments

HeadingA

----

----

HeadingB

Comments

That is just plain bizarre, and I bet that it never occurred to you that that was going to happen. Two lines in a row is extremely unexpected and nonsensical. I expect many people seeing that will experience it a very distracting WTF mental trainwreck.

In that particular case the empty section was intended to invite discussion on topic HeadingA. However it could just as well have been a sample of article content posted on talk. Mangling article content posted on talk pages would be bad, therefore HeadingA is correct and the bizarre double-line is being caused by the inconsistent styling on HeadingB. Alsee (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that I was referring to the general mental gear-crashing/freeze up when you've seen something the same way hundreds of times, then the standard patterns are broken and your brain has to stop to figure out what you're looking at.

Understood. Also, I appreciate you naming/describing this experience...I relate to, what sounds like, the period of adjustment that can arise when I return to a place I've visited before to find that things are not where I'm used to them being or looking.

In the middle of several discussion sections there was an empty section. The result was two horizontal lines in a row, like this...

Oh, interesting – can you please share a link to the page where you noticed this? I'd value seeing this case in the context it emerged within.

In the meantime, would it be accurate for me to understand the wikitext that produced that behavior you noted above as what I've written here? And if not, could you please edit meta:User_talk:PPelberg_(WMF)/Sandbox so that it contains the wikitext that produced the behavior you encountered? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

the period of adjustment that can arise when I return to a place I've visited before to find that things are not where I'm used to them being or looking.

Actually I particularly had new users in mind. They've been reading articles and they have a lot of "free" knowledge built in from that. One bit of free knowledge they have is section headings look like, from seeing countless section headings in articles. They go to Talk and you're randomly hitting them with scrambled page elements. Either they don't recognize the section heading and they need to process what they're looking at from scratch, or even worse they do "recognize" and the mismatch with their implicit knowledge mentally crashes in active confusion. Why make things more difficult and unpleasant for new users??

I previously tried to explain simplicity, and you never understood what I was trying to say. You thought I was saying editors are familiar with what we have therefor it is "simple" for us. That's not it. This heading formatting is a small piece of what I was trying to explain. If headings work the same on both pages, there is literally nothing to learn. Making them work differently is a (small) increase in complexity, it's an additional thing you need to learn, it's an additional thing you need in your head when you're using the system. This is a small bit of added complexity, but a pile of a thousand small bits of complexity becomes far more difficult to learn and more difficult to use. When we say "a page is a page", that embodies thousands of things that you don't need to learn. There's more to it, but that's part of it.

Why make things more complex, needlessly inserting random inconsistency? Alsee (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alsee: thank you for following up with this additional detail...

It sounds like we agree:

1. It is important that new users arriving on talk pages understand them as places to communicate with other volunteers about changes to improve Wikipedia

2. It is important that the Editing Team considers the experiences new users have with reading articles as we come up with solutions/designs to achieve what "1." describes

3. The more "things" people need to consciously think about/learn about Wikipedia's interface, the more difficultly they will having using Wikipedia

It sounds like you assume:

4. Ensuring section headings look the same on desktop article pages and desktop talk pages will reduce the amount of complexity new users will need to cope with/learn

If I assume the above to be accurate then:

I think the point of difference between what the Editing Team is thinking and what it sounds like you are thinking is the following...

We think that section headings looking the same on desktop article pages and desktop talk pages will increase the amount of complexity new users will need to cope with/learn and therefore detract from "1." rather than contribute to it.

We've come to think this based on, among other things, two bits of primary research.

First, is the new user tests we ran as part of the Talk pages consultation wherein we learned that new users were confused by the similarity between how section headings were presented on article and talk pages, "...once on the talk page, many users thought the headers of the discussions corresponded to the sections of the article. In other words, they thought that discussions about articles were organized around article sections."

Second, is the usability tests we ran of this new design with new users and Junior Contributors wherein we learned that most test participants accurately recognized talk pages as places to communicate with other volunteers within ~15 seconds of landing on the page.

Of course, if there is research you've done/seen that leads you to think that section headings looking the same on desktop article pages and desktop talk pages will reduce the amount of complexity new users will need to cope with/learn I'd value knowing! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I found the page I saw:m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Discuss_Key_Questions
I hadn't examined the source and I had misinterpreted what was happening. The actual issues are as follows:

1. =H1 headers= render with the line below the heading, resulting in the double line effect. You can see this in the top half of your sandbox. "General comments" has a double line after it.
2. When I paste article content on talk it's mangling the ==H2 headers== putting them above the heading. You can see this on the bottom half of your sandbox. (I could have sworn I tested this before, I though my previous test correctly put the lines were below the headings, and I assumed it was because no comments were detected in the sections.) Alsee (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with these examples. Before filing a ticket, a couple of questions about what you're noticing...

I) Two lines appear above =H1= section headings when they are immediately followed by an H2

1. On desktop, visit a talk page where Topic Containers are enabled and said talk page contains a minimum of one H1 section heading that: a) does not contain any content within it and b) is followed by an H2. E.g. meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Discuss_Key_Questions
2. ❗️Notice two horizontal lines appear beneath the H1

Question: what would you expect to happen in this case?

II) A horizontal line appears atop ==H2== section headings that do not have discussions happening beneath them

1. On desktop, visit a talk page where Topic Containers are enabled and said talk page contains a minimum of one H2 section heading does not contain a discussion. E.g. meta:User_talk:PPelberg_(WMF)/Sandbox#Electrification
2. Notice == Electrification == has a horizontal line above it

Question: what concerns you about this? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Starting with your second question, I find this so obvious that I struggle with how to respond. We're both programmers, so maybe I can make an analogy. Some language conventions allow more than one file extension for code. For example in C++ you typically use a file extension of .cpp the main body of a program, and included header files typically use a .h extension.

• A file is a file: It works the same way not matter what you put in it.
• C++ code is C++ code: It means the same thing and behaves the same way, no matter what file extension it happens to have.
• There may be conventions that .cpp and .h files tend to be used for somewhat different purposes, but those conventions don't alter the underlying behavior. During actual work, it is expected that you will sometimes need to move a chunk from one place to the other. That works seamlessly.

Now imagine someone comes along as says to you they want to change how the print function works, depending on the file extension. Output will be formatted one way if the code has a cpp file extension, and output will be formatted differently if it has an h file extension. That is theoretically doable, however it makes things more complex and confusing if the meaning or behavior randomly and unexpectedly change when you copy-paste a block from one place to another.

If you look back you can replace replace "C++ code" with Wikitext, replace file with page, replace ".ccp" with article pages and ".h" with talk pages. And in this example, the print function formatting is the header formatting. The header formatting is not a huge or catastrophic in itself, but breaking the definition and behavior of wikitext appears as obvious of an issue as breaking definitions and behavior in any other language.

If I may quote former Board member Doc James' response in the Talk Page Consultation, he made a point many others have made:[2]

• ...Content can be copied and pasted from the main article to the talk page and the formating remains the same... Doc James 06:16, 24 February 2019

Most editors consider that an implicit fact. Our wiki-world is built out of wikitext, wikitext works everywhere, and wikitext has a definition. Editors were in disbelief when the lead Dev on the previous project said the unthinkable, that wikitext would have a random different definition and random different behavior on different pages. Editors had to learn to state the unthinkable. We had to learn to expressly say that when you copy-paste wikitext, the definition does not randomly change. When editors don't say this out loud, it's usually because they can't imagine it needs saying.

I negotiated the uninstall of the previous project from EnWiki,[3] as well as uninstall consensus at Meta,[4] and Commons.[5] I am the person primarily responsible for getting the WMF to re-evaluate it's Talk page plans, and ultimately the 2019 Talk Page Consultation. I was extensively involved in the preparation and process for the Talk page consultation. First on the list of Possible Solutions, as posted by DannyH,[6] was "Building features on top of wikitext talk pages, to make them easier and more efficient." The support for that option was so overwhelming - had been overwhelming for years - that the WMF really shouldn't have needed to go through the motions of a formal Consultation.

Building features on top of wikitext talk pages, to make them easier and more efficient, should not alter the underlying and pre-existing behavior of wikitext itself. At least, not without consulting the community on any proposed changes.

P.S. On the first question, "what would you expect to happen in this case?" my expectation is incredibly simple. I expect my expectation is the same as pretty much all editors' expectation. I expect wikitext to have a single definition. I expect all wikitext, including all levels of =headers=, to have consistent behavior on all pages.

The ugly double-line mess caused entirely by the new upsidedown formatting on ==H2==. Alsee (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

...wikitext works everywhere, and wikitext has a definition. Editors were in disbelief when the lead Dev on the previous project said the unthinkable, that wikitext would have a random different definition and random different behavior on different pages.

For you, it sounds like == Heading name == rendering with a horizontal line beneath it in the main namespace and a horizontal line above it in the talk namespace is a substantial enough difference that you consider it as changing the definition of what == == means and you anticipate other volunteers will reach the same conclusion.

Building features on top of wikitext talk pages, to make them easier and more efficient, should not alter the underlying and pre-existing behavior of wikitext itself. At least, not without consulting the community on any proposed changes.

+1 to what you're saying here. In fact, we're planning to make these heading changes available as an opt-in beta feature in the coming days at en.wiki and I'll be curious to learn whether the concern you've named here is a concern other volunteers share as well.

In parallel, I'll be on the lookout for comments from volunteers at other wikis about this.

Note: the changes to how H2 section headings are styled on talk pages are available on all Wikimedia wikis as a beta feature except de.wiki, en.wiki, and ja.wiki.

The ugly double-line mess caused entirely by the new upsidedown formatting on ==H2==.

I'm glad you spotted this. I've now filed T318198 so that we can track the prevalence of this issue and figure out what could be done to prevent it from happening. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

you anticipate other volunteers will reach the same conclusion

I quoted for you a Board member during the Talk page consultations making the point themself. We expect consistent behavior when we copy-paste wikitext.

Is that really so hard to believe? Would it help if I go dig up quotes from various other editors who have said the same thing in one form or another over the years? Would it help to have an RFC asking whether we want consistent wikitext behavior?

the changes to how H2 section headings are styled on talk pages are available on all Wikimedia wikis as a beta feature

I currently have no opinion on the "Latest comment..." stuff, but if an editor does want it, how do they fix the H2 problem? Or is the H2 problem forced on anyone who wants the "Latest comment..." stuff? Alsee (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the output not being the same in the preview as in the reading mode (presumably in the 2010WTE and 2017WTE). If that hasn't been addressed, then we should probably file a bug (and possibly organize a meeting about it soon, since it might need to be coordinated with the Content Transform Team, plus CommTech's live preview work is getting busy). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Prototype skin

While translating this page, I noticed that the screenshot uses Vector 2022, but the Patch Demo wiki defaults to legacy Vector. Using legacy Vector, steps 3 & 4 are quite difficult, as there are no TOC improvements. Maybe the links should include &useskin=vector-2022? Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

(Or if Matma Rex can change the default skin, it’d be even better, but as far as I remember, Patch Demo is not prepared for such tasks.) Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Great spot, @Tacsipacsi. I'm cc'ing @Whatamidoing (WMF) to address the issue you are raising here so as not to interfere with the workflow she has for maintaining this page. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to set the skin according to what the Wikipedia for that language is using. It's awkward for English, because the English Wikipedia is using old Vector, but people who aren't from the English Wikipedia will be clicking that link. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Uncle Bash007

I think the appearance is quiet clean and more attractive to senses. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying out the prototype and stopping by to share what you think of it! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome. ~ Uncle Bash007 (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Urban Versis 32

1. A laptop.
2. Nothing.
3. None.
4. Everything, it's so much easier to use.
5. Nothing, I like it the way it is.
6. N/A Urban Versis 32 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We're glad to hear you found the improvements useful, @Urban Versis 32. If at any point new thoughts/questions come up in your mind about the design, please do let us know! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: ClydeFranklin

1. Desktop
2. The "comments" and "people in discussion" sections
3. N/A
4. It's much more easy and convenient than the current design.
5. Nothing! Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @ClydeFranklin – we appreciate you trying out the prototype and sharing what you think about it. It sounds like you found the new design useful which is nice to hear :)

If at any point new thoughts/questions come up in your mind about the design, please do let us know! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Gusfriend

1. Desktop
2. The discussions tab and details on the left.
3. None.
4. Whiter and cleaner
5. I am okay with it as it is.
6. I am not sure how the discussions tab on the left will work on backs with large numbers of items. Gusfriend (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Gusfriend – thank you for trying out the prototype and taking the time to stop by here to share what you thought about it.

I am not sure how the discussions tab on the left will work on backs with large numbers of items.

Can you say a bit more about the above? When you say "the discussion tabs on the left..." are you referring to the table of contents (the box that appears on the left side of your screen with the titles of each discussion section within it)? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I mean the table of contents on talk pages with the numbers of comments in each section and the like. Whilst I am hopeful that it will work it would be good to see it in action on a page with 100 different sections. A page like AN/I can generate a number of sections and a large number of replies within each section even with page archiving. Now I write it down I think that my concern is around how crowded it becomes. If you have 50 items in the TOC and each has a number of replies and people that is a lot of information and it could become busy in aggregate in a way that it isn't with fewer items. Gusfriend (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Try out these links to see what the TOC looks like on a long page:

• Vector 2010:  http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools?useskin=vector
• Vector 2022:  http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools?useskin=vector-2022
• Vector 2022 without the new Table of Contents:  http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools?useskin=vector-2022&tableofcontents=0

The first is the current default skin at the English Wikipedia and Wikidata. The second is new Vector 2022, with their proposed TOC. The third shows the new skin without the proposed TOC. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Jay

T282269: Make it easier to identify and understand the relationships between the threads and comments

Feedback: Jay

1. Laptop
2. Nothing
3. None
4. The "Latest comment" feature
5. Wish was different:
   • The bolded Reply at the end of each post is distracting. Unbold, and preferably italicize like Reply
   • I would like vertical lines indicating threads like this Jay (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the designer once considered light gray vertical lines, similar to what you linked. I don't remember what the decision was (e.g., save the idea for the future, technical problems, etc.). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jay: thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and come here to share what you think about it.

A couple of comments in response...

The bolded Reply at the end of each post is distracting. Unbold, and preferably italicize like Reply

I hear you on this one. I wonder how – if at all – your perception of the Reply buttons will evolve should you decide to keep this new design enabled on talk pages once it becomes available.

What Wikipedia do you spend the most time on? I'm asking this so that I can set a reminder to check in with you once this new design becomes available there.

I would like vertical lines indicating threads like this

@Whatamidoing (WMF): great memory. And @Jay the idea you raised in the bit I've quoted above is one we've been thinking about in T282269. Although, it is not likely that we'll have the opportunity to prioritize work on designing and implementing this kind of functionality during this phase of the Talk pages project. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I spend more time on the English wikipedia. Jay (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You bet and understood.

I've written myself a reminder to follow up with you once the new Reply link/button design becomes available as a Beta Feature at en.wiki. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I had visited mediawiki for the new skin feedback, and was catching up with my previous edits here. And I saw this reminder of yours. The "Reply" link was no longer distracting. In fact I didn't even notice there was a Reply link at the end of posts! I don't use it. I go to the top of the discussion thread, click "edit source" and place my indent where I want to. But now when I looked again, in order to provide feedback, I find the bolded Reply distracting again. I can't unsee it once I have focussed on it! Jay (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for following up to let us know, @Jay!

I wonder how/if at all your experience with the button might change when the new design becomes available at, what appears t be, your home wiki: en.wiki... PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback: QuickQuokka

1. Laptop
2. Nothing No Table of contents/discussions sidebar is different from the photos
3. None
4. The design of the "Reply" button.
5. Wish was different:
   • I wish there was an "Edit" button beside the "Reply" button so I don't have to edit the whole page/section and search for my reply every time.
   • I wish there were collapsible threads (Kinda like in Reddit) QuickQuokka (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Lollipoplollipoplollipop

T269954: Enable talk page topics to be collapsed and expanded

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype? Laptop, 1080p screen, Firefox.
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype? I had no expectations going in.
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete? None
4. What do you like about the prototype? I liked all of it. The last comment, number of comments, and number of participants seems like very very helpful additions. Very clean design, whilst also maintaining Wikipedianess.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype? When you click on the latest comment, it automatically highlights that comment. That seems weird. The scrolling would be enough to locate any comment one would have difficulty finding, all the weird bespoke highlighting does is mess up accesibility and themes (it creates a new div for the highlight as opposed to just adding a class to the comment element? Wacky). Also collapsible threads would be nice.
6. (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful. Would be interesting to see the design with larger, more complex discussions rather than just toy examples. Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

About #6, please try https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools (or https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:DiscussionTools?useskin=vector-2022 if you want the new Vector 2022 with its proposed Table of Contents). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

...all the weird bespoke highlighting does is mess up accesibility and themes (it creates a new div for the highlight as opposed to just adding a class to the comment element? Wacky).

@Lollipoplollipoplollipop can you please say more about the accessibility implications of the highlighting feature? Asked another way: what becomes more difficult as a result of new divs being added to the page?

Also: thank you for trying the prototype and coming by to share what you think about it! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback:

1. Laptop
2. I thought there would be more changes
3. None
4. I like how the statistics make it feel more like a social media thread than a giant blob of text
5. As an inexperienced Wikipedian, I often have trouble following the flow of conversation in Talk pages. If it could be more organized through filtering, sorting, collapsing, or something else, I would appreciate it. 170.39.242.47 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: 2ple

1. Laptop, Chrome
2. It kinds sucks, ngl
3. None
4. There is literally nothing to like, ease of use aside. I hate it.
5. Where to begin:
   • Hours since last message feels like it would disincentivize editors from reviving discussions and move only to the ones that are getting the most attention, same with people in discussion and number of comments, get rid of it now, please. It's not completely bad but I think functionality should never be sacrificed for design. I can definitely see a situation in which a question is ignored simply because the editor who posted it lives in India, and the majority of editors who edit the page like in Canada, so by the time they wake up, the newest (and lowest) discussion is the only one they pay attention to
   • wider line spacing, and double spacing in between different sections of the same thread (different answers to one question)
   • less of a social media-like feel to it. Wikipedia is meant to feel like a big block of text, not Facebook.
   • collapsible threads would be amazing and something I would very much like to be implemented, just a little triangle in the corner, it would make my day
   • lines indicating threads like many other websites
   • bolded reply is annoying, leave it unbolded, italicize, or do the sensible thing and render it as [ reply ]
   • it feels so empty. When I compare it to a current talk page, it's just missing something. Update the page to be an actual talk page with a FAQ, WikiProject Status, good article rejection, and templates—boring old sans serif text doesn't showcase anything. I need me some {{tq}} and {{s}}, okay? 2ple (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: 0mtwb9gd5wx

1366x768 screen

MISSING: "Insert", "Wiki markup", "Edit summaries", "Edit summaries, minor" .... ~ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marv_McFadden&action=edit as an example, look at the pick-list. .... ~ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "pick-list" is, but this page is about DiscussionTools, which doesn't appear in any article. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/listbox-dropdown/ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

search: ux|gui pick-list|dropdown-list 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Menu (computing) 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Since 2013, I have been supporting improvements to Extension:VisualEditor for the multilingual and English-speaking projects" : citation part needs more templates 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

next is source code: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

<input type="hidden" value="b24b569a95e188a0da7d40e3e52f2b2662e85f02+\" name="wpEditToken"/>

Copy and paste: – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §   Cite your sources: <ref></ref>

---- {{}}   {{{}}}   |   []   [[]]   [[Category:]]   #REDIRECT [[]]   &nbsp;   <s></s>         <code></code>   <pre></pre>   <blockquote></blockquote>   <ref></ref> <ref name="" />  

  <references />   <includeonly></includeonly>   <noinclude></noinclude>     <nowiki></nowiki>   <!-- -->   <span class="plainlinks"></span>

---- Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶   # ∞   ‹› «»   ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥   ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦   𝄫 ♭ ♮ ♯ 𝄪   © ® ™

Latin: A a Á á À à  â Ä ä Ǎ ǎ Ă ă Ā ā à ã Å å Ą ą Æ æ Ǣ ǣ   B b   C c Ć ć Ċ ċ Ĉ ĉ Č č Ç ç   D d Ď ď Đ đ Ḍ ḍ Ð ð   E e É é È è Ė ė Ê ê Ë ë Ě ě Ĕ ĕ Ē ē Ẽ ẽ Ę ę Ẹ ẹ Ɛ ɛ Ǝ ǝ Ə ə   F f   G g Ġ ġ Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ģ ģ   H h Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ḥ ḥ   I i İ ı Í í Ì ì Î î Ï ï Ǐ ǐ Ĭ ĭ Ī ī Ĩ ĩ Į į Ị ị   J j Ĵ ĵ   K k Ķ ķ   L l Ĺ ĺ Ŀ ŀ Ľ ľ Ļ ļ Ł ł Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ   M m Ṃ ṃ   N n Ń ń Ň ň Ñ ñ Ņ ņ Ṇ ṇ Ŋ ŋ   O o Ó ó Ò ò Ô ô Ö ö Ǒ ǒ Ŏ ŏ Ō ō Õ õ Ǫ ǫ Ọ ọ Ő ő Ø ø Œ œ   Ɔ ɔ   P p   Q q   R r Ŕ ŕ Ř ř Ŗ ŗ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ   S s Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Š š Ş ş Ș ș Ṣ ṣ ß   T t Ť ť Ţ ţ Ț ț Ṭ ṭ Þ þ   U u Ú ú Ù ù Û û Ü ü Ǔ ǔ Ŭ ŭ Ū ū Ũ ũ Ů ů Ų ų Ụ ụ Ű ű Ǘ ǘ Ǜ ǜ Ǚ ǚ Ǖ ǖ   V v   W w Ŵ ŵ   X x   Y y Ý ý Ŷ ŷ Ÿ ÿ Ỹ ỹ Ȳ ȳ   Z z Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž   ß Ð ð Þ þ Ŋ ŋ Ə ə

Greek: Ά ά Έ έ Ή ή Ί ί Ό ό Ύ ύ Ώ ώ   Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ   Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ   Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ   Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π   Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ   Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω   Template:Polytonic

Cyrillic: А а Б б В в Г г   Ґ ґ Ѓ ѓ Д д Ђ ђ   Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж   З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і   Ї ї Й й Ј ј К к   Ќ ќ Л л Љ љ М м   Н н Њ њ О о П п   Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ   У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х   Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш   Щ щ Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь   Э э Ю ю Я я   ́

IPA: t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ   ɸ β θ ð ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ç ʝ ɣ χ ʁ ħ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ   ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ   ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ   ʙ ⱱ ʀ ɾ ɽ   ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ   ɥ ʍ ɧ   ʼ   ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ   ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ   ɨ ʉ ɯ   ɪ ʏ ʊ   ø ɘ ɵ ɤ   ə ɚ   ɛ œ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ   æ   ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ   ʰ ʱ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ   ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪  

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the design that you can see at https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York. You might be on the wrong page. If you need help finding the right page, please let me know if you have:

• a question,
• a problem, or
• an idea

so I can help you find the right page. It might help me if you write your question, problem, or idea in complete sentences.

In case it is relevant, the large box of special characters that you pasted into the message above is called Extension:CharInsert and is stored in each local wiki on the page MediaWiki:Edittools. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): ADD: this:
Extension:CharInsert
~ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe 0mtwb9gd5wx is on the correct page. I believe they presumed their list of "missing" features would be understood as a statement that those features should not be missing from DiscussionTools.

In particular, I don't use CharInsert very often but I know other people do need it regularly. I have seen other people complain about it being missing from DiscussionTools, and I expect I too will find absence of CharInsert to be a problem when I do happen to need it. Alsee (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Ltwin

Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

Laptop

What did you find unexpected about the prototype?

Nothing really, I had to search for how it was different initially.

Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

At first, I missed the new the comment/persons statistics in each discussion so those steps took me longer than they should have until I noticed them.

What do you like about the prototype?

The number of comments and persons in each discussion is cool to know, but I'm not sure how helpful that will be. The most recent change at the top is nice.

What do you wish was different about the prototype?

Nothing.

(Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.

No. Ltwin (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: DaSupremo

You use mobile device or laptop come test de prototype?

Laptop

What you find unexpected about de prototype?

Nothing really. Can the 'undo' button be added to ease in editing?

Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

I did not face anything difficulty when I voted for the logo. I still think the 'undo' button be added because whilst copying and pasting this information here, I mistakenly cleared the information I copied here and I had to go back to the other page to copy it again which might be easier if the 'undo' button was here.

What you dey like about de prototype?

It is pretty easier to use.

What you dey wish be different about de prototype?

Nothing

(Optional) You fi imagine dis design no dey job for sum pages top? If you fi, we beg share links go dis pages? E go be helpful waa.

No DaSupremo (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Of the Universe

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype? laptop
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype? I couldn't find any way to sort the discussion sections, which seems like a good idea to implement given the other improvements
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete? It was all pretty easy
4. What do you like about the prototype? It's useful to see when a discussion section was last edited. And I like that it will encourage people to properly thread the replies. The comment count seems redundant, you can see how big a discussion section is with your eyes, you don't need to be told.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype? It would be cool to be able to sort the sections based on different parameters (date added, last edited, number of comments, etc) It would also maybe be nice to be able to collapse sections or collapse threaded replies.
6. (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful. Nope. It doesn't seem different enough from the old design to cause problems. Of the universe (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Eldarado

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype? Both of them
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype? I didn't find yet.
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete? I's so easy to use.
4. What do you like about the prototype? Specially, I liked "Latest Comment" info section.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype? Nothing Eldarado (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Skarmory

Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

Laptop.

What did you find unexpected about the prototype?

I haven't been paying any attention to progress on this so I wasn't expecting it to look quite like it did, but I don't really mind? It might take some getting used to though.

Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

I manually checked each section for step 2 as opposed to finding the small bar stating the latest comment at the top of the page.

What do you like about the prototype?

I'm not sure how useful the new stats will be, but I like having them there, at least for now. It's also really easy to see how to reply, I like having that.

What do you wish was different about the prototype?

I'm not seeing the sidebar that's in the screenshots on the prototype. Not sure whether I'd like it or not, I'd like to actually use it before I pass judgment there.

(Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.

Nothing I can think of.

Also gonna drop a quick note here: I know someone else's feedback mentioned this was starting to look like social media to an extent, and I think it's something to be mindful of. Just my two cents on that. Skarmory (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

The sidebar is a new idea about the Table of Contents. It's part of Vector 2022. You can see it on this test wiki if you use this link: http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/User_talk:Bob?useskin=vector-2022 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: catsmoke

T282269: Make it easier to identify and understand the relationships between the threads and comments

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop…? I used a mobile device, an iPhone 7+ with the Safari browser.
2. What did you find unexpected…? It was surprising to see the topic counts of participating users, and the number of comments.
3. Which steps…did you find difficult? Finding the topic with the most users and the most comments was difficult, because I was looking to the left side of the page for a summary total, I did not expect that every topic would have its own individual tally.
4. What do you like…? I like to see the number of users who are participating in a topic, because it is hard to tell, just by looking. I greatly enjoyed the ease of adding a reply by using the "Reply" option.
5. What do you wish was different…? I wish it was easier to tell the row where one comment ends and the next comment begins. Differently shaded alternating backgrounds would do this.
6. Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? Would this new design work on the Main Page "corrections" section? Because it's broken up unusually, into unique subsections. Catsmoke (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you usually use the "desktop" site for your normal editing. Do you remember whether the PatchDemo test wiki put you in the desktop site ("Vector") or the mobile site? (The usual "Mobile view"/"Desktop view" links are in the footer, at the very bottom of every page.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The PatchDemo test wiki put me in the desktop site, not the mobile site.* I do have my mobile phone set to Use desktop site at all times, for all websites (often this does not work, as some sites automatically change their layouts to conform to the size of the viewing screen). My practice is to avoid mobile versions of websites, in all circumstances, even though this does cause me occasional difficulties.

*But in the sample picture, the desktop site seemed to have a summary column on the lefthand side of the page, where there was a list of the comments with the most responses and so forth, or maybe it listed the most recent comments, or both. This column, if there is such a column, did not appear on my phone, although I was at the desktop site. Catsmoke (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The screenshots mostly show the new Vector 2022 with its new (proposed, not guaranteed) Table of Contents. If you'd like to take another look, then try these links:

• Vector 2010: http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York?useskin=vector
• Vector 2022: http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York?useskin=vector-2022
• Vector 2022 without the new Table of Contents: http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York?useskin=vector-2022&tableofcontents=0
• Minerva (looks like the mobile site, although it may not be exactly the same thing that you would see if you clicked the "Mobile view" link): http://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/wiki/Talk:New_York?useskin=minerva Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

My preference is for Vector 2022 although in my desktop browser (Firefox 103.0.1 64-bit) the items in the table of contents are not a numbered list, and I find the numbered list to be helpful. Catsmoke (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: James3141592

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype? No, I did not use a mobile device to test the prototype.
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype? There was nothing unusual about this prototype.
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete? I had no difficulties in completing this step.
4. What do you like about the prototype? I like to see how many users are participating in a topic.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype? I wish that it was easy to tell where a comment ends and where a new comment begins. James3141592 talk 17:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Danre98

1. I used a laptop
2. I found the placement of lines between discussions to be unexpected, but a nice addition. I noticed the different appearance of level 2 headers too.
3. None were difficult, all were easy
4. I especially liked the count of how many people were in each section, and the appearance of the reply link
5. It would be better to not have to go to source to edit, but that's not a crucial feature
6. None that I can think of, but an available page-specific override might be good to have

It looks quite nice overall. Danre98 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: anon

I think that the prototype is great! However, I think that the comment and reply numbers should be inline with the topic name to save space. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If the proposed design is approximately this:

----There is a draft for this article  [edit source]

Latest comment: 9 months ago  |  4 comments  |  2 people in discussion

Then you would like to see something closer to this?

----There is a draft for this article Latest comment: 9 months ago  |  4 comments  |  2 people in discussion  [edit source]

(I'm not really sure how to make a subscribe button with the bell, but there should be a white button with a blue bell on the far side of the screen.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Jeeputer

T245225: Implement editing specific comments

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
   • رایانه
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
   • پس از ارسال نظر روی پیوند «Just now» کلیک کردم؛ به امید این که بتوانم آخرین نظر خود را ویرایش کنم. اما نشد و ظاهراً برای ویرایش نظرم باید روی «edit source» کلیک می‌کردم. با توجه به مراحل آزمایش، انتظار داشتم که ویرایش نظر هم با شیوه‌ای جدید انجام شود. اگر شیوهٔ جدیدی هم برایش تعریف شده، دست کم من نتوانستم به راحتی آن را پیدا کنم.
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
   • 5.2 همان‌طور که بالاتر توضیح دادم.
4. What do you like about the prototype?
   • همه‌چیز عالی، ساده و کاربردی است. امکان ویرایش نظر هم می‌تواند مفید باشد.
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?
   • هیچ! Jeeputer (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jeeputer: I appreciate you taking the time to review the feedback and share what you think about it with us here.

I am responding in English because I do not know Persian. If you are finding it difficult to understand anything that I have written, please let me know and I will try to communicate what I am saying in a different way :)

پس از ارسال نظر روی پیوند «Just now» کلیک کردم؛ به امید این که بتوانم آخرین نظر خود را ویرایش کنم. اما نشد و ظاهراً برای ویرایش نظرم باید روی «edit source» کلیک می‌کردم. با توجه به مراحل آزمایش، انتظار داشتم که ویرایش نظر هم با شیوه‌ای جدید انجام شود. اگر شیوهٔ جدیدی هم برایش تعریف شده، دست کم من نتوانستم به راحتی آن را پیدا کنم.

It is helpful to hear that you expected there to be a way to quickly edit the last comment you made.

This is a functionality we would like to offer some day. Although, it is not likely we will be able to offer it in the next few months.

In the meantime, you will be able to edit comments using the existing "edit" links that appear next to each talk page section heading. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. I am not a native English speaker, but I have some understanding of it. I wrote my feedback in Persian because I didn't have enough time at the moment and, for me, writing in English is not as easy as Persian.

If you have plans to implement that functionality in the future, so I have no concerns. I'm looking forward to see this new feature soon. Thank you. Jeeputer (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. I am not a native English speaker, but I have some understanding of it. I wrote my feedback in Persian because I didn't have enough time at the moment and, for me, writing in English is not as easy as Persian.

Understood and I appreciate you sharing this context :) Although, please know that it is important to me that you respond in the language you are most comfortable writing in. I'm happy to use Google Translate. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I am comfortable with English. I have gained my current English skills by translating articles on Wikipedia. Jeeputer (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have gained my current English skills by translating articles on Wikipedia.

Wow! I feel inspired by knowing that...thank you for sharing, @Jeeputer.

Do you remember what prompted you to start translating articles to English in the first place? For example, did you start translating articles seeing it as a way to practice English? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I started translating from English to Persian. My first article was Visceral Games, but I can't remember what prompted me to create that article. I can recall that I translated an article about a movie from English to Persian, because I was looking for information about that movie, but the article was not available in Persian.

I made a disruptive edit on Persian Wikipedia weeks before I create my account. And that edit made me curious about editing on the project. Lets say that my first article was a test and I found out that contributing to the project can be my free time activity.

en:Viceral Games Jeeputer (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I started translating from English to Persian.

Oh, I see!

I can recall that I translated an article about a movie from English to Persian, because I was looking for information about that movie, but the article was not available in Persian.

Interesting. Okay.

I made a disruptive edit on Persian Wikipedia weeks before I create my account. And that edit made me curious about editing on the project.

That's curious! Do you recall what edit you were trying to make? Prior to receiving feedback about the edit, did you assume people would find it to be "disruptive"?

Note: I as the above as the Editing Team is soon going to be working on a project that seeks to provide people feedback while they're editing so that they can avoid publishing changes that could break the policies and guidelines projects have established. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember the article. the edit was immediately reverted. I got to show the result to my friend, but that was gone minutes (or maybe seconds) after! Now that I think about it, "Abusive" is a better term to describe that edit. I knew that the content I added was irrelevant (like adding my friends name to a list of notable people I think) and I did it to make a joke and have fun with friends. but I didn't know that Wikipedia had a reverting functionality and didn't even know what happens when I make an abusive edit or how many edits like this are made per day. Now I feel sorry about what I did, but I'm also happy because it made a Wikipedia editor (now sysop on fawiki) out of me.

I can't wait to see how the project you mentioned works and how can it help editors and patrollers. In my opinion, tools that help contributors to fight vandalism should be in the highest priority. Jeeputer (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...I didn't know that Wikipedia had a reverting functionality and didn't even know what happens when I make an abusive edit or how many edits like this are made per day. Now I feel sorry about what I did, but I'm also happy because it made a Wikipedia editor (now sysop on fawiki) out of me.

Interesting and I'm happy too! I appreciate you sharing this story with me :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Beland

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

Desktop, with an actual portrait-orientation desktop monitor.

2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?

Well, the "reply" link and the line with counts and the latest comment are new.

3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

Editing my existing comment. Also, filling out the CAPTCHA; it didn't have a submit button distinct from the Reply.

4. What do you like about the prototype?

The reply feature so we don't have to edit the source and figure out how many colons to use to indent properly.

5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?

I'd kind of like to see an "edit" button on my own posts. I suppose discouraging editing of comments after-the-fact is somewhat healthy, as we're not supposed to do that in a way that changes the meaning. However, I think it would mostly be used to fix typos.

It seems to be missing a way to input special characters, like the degree symbol or Greek letters - the sort of thing common in STEM articles on Wikipedia.

6. Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.

Any talk page on enwiki where there's an RFC or merge discussion or something where people are voting. Then we need the ability to add an item in a bulleted list. See the "Discuss" links from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions for examples.

Sometimes discussions also end up with very deep nested replies, which causes the text to become extremely narrow. Someone eventually "outdents" it to reset it to the left margin so the conversation can continue readably. I'm not sure how that would be done here other than by editing the source to put in en:Template:Outdent . -- Beland (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Testing on my Android phone, what I would want most is a way to expand all the sections at once, so I can search the whole page for a certain text string. Right now I have to manually go through and expand all the sections one by one before I can search them. This requires a lot of scrolling and care and aim, unless you realize it's easier to go from bottom to top. Use cases include 1. finding the section on the page where I was previously involved in a conversation, 2. checking to see if a certain user had made comments on the page, and 3. checking to see if a certain issue or chunk of text or source had already been discussed.

The "Return to Reply" and link from the header that scrolls you to the most recent comment in a thread - nice features! -- ~ Beland (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

what I would want most is a way to expand all the sections at once, so I can search the whole page for a certain text string

Actually, this is a feature that would make just as much or even more sense in articles as well. Could we have it for both? Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Beland! Wow. how generous of you to try out the experience on both mobile and desktop and share what you thought of both here...thank you :)

I'm going to use this post to respond to the feedback you shared about desktop and then follow up with a separate message to respond to the feedback you shared about mobile.

I'd kind of like to see an "edit" button on my own posts.

We hear on the value of adding this functionality. And while we won't have time to implement this during this phase of the Talk pages project, we are keeping track of the work that would be involved in doing this later in T245225.

It seems to be missing a way to input special characters, like the degree symbol or Greek letters - the sort of thing common in STEM articles on Wikipedia.

We will be adding the special characters toolbar in the coming weeks. You can track progress on this implementation in T249072.

...we need the ability to add an item in a bulleted list. See the "Discuss" links from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions for examples

Can you please give the steps below a quick read and let me know if I've misunderstood the functionality you are describing above?

Ideal workflow:

1. Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions on a mobile or desktop device
2. ✅ Observe there is a button/link that would open a tool like the one that currently appears when you click/tap a [ reply ] link that would enable you to add a new bulleted list item within a section of your choosing (e.g. ===August 6, 2022===)

If the above accurately describes the functionality you are seeking, then I will update the task where we are tracking this idea (T249886) with the example you shared.

Sometimes discussions also end up with very deep nested replies, which causes the text to become extremely narrow. Someone eventually "outdents" it to reset it to the left margin so the conversation can continue readably. I'm not sure how that would be done here other than by editing the source to put in

I see. It sounds like you are seeking a way to be able to manually adjust the depth at which the comment you are drafting will be published from within the Reply Tool....do I have that right? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that page is maintained by bot. The ideal workflow would be to go to a talk page discussion like w:Talk:Agni Poolu (film)#Requested move 15 July 2022 and respond to the move proposal by adding a new item in the bulleted list. Which typically includes a phrase like Support or Oppose or Comment and some reasoning. -- ~ Beland (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I get "-- ~~~~" in this form instead of my signature if I click the "preview the result" link and then click "Reply". If I just click "Reply" in source mode, it works as intended. If I go to preview and then back to source editing before saving, I see that the system has added unwanted "nowiki" tags. Beland (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Now on to responses to the feedback you shared about the new mobile experience...

...what I would want most is a way to expand all the sections at once, so I can search the whole page for a certain text string.

Would it be accurate for me to understand the above as you requesting the ability to expand and collapse all of the sections on a per-page basis?

I ask the above to make sure what you are describing is distinct from the existing setting within Special:Preference that enables you to decide whether all sections on mobile are expanded or collapsed by default.

The "Return to Reply" ...

We just added this! @Esanders (WMF) will be glad to know you found this helpful.

...link from the header that scrolls you to the most recent comment in a thread - nice features

:) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Aha, I've been using mobile Wikipedia for years, and I never knew there was a setting that expanded all sections by default! I'm going to enable that and see how I like it. It does have the tradeoff of making articles more difficult to navigate by section. On the desktop version, there's a table of contents you can look at to see if you want to skip to a specific section, but if you just keep reading everything's always fully visible. I think either showing a TOC on mobile if all sections are expanded, or having a per-page "expand/collapse all sections" toggle on mobile would mitigate the problem that the "always expanded" and "never expanded" settings have. -- Beland (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It does have the tradeoff of making articles more difficult to navigate by section...

I agree with you here. I do not think the setting resolves the issue you shared above.

I think either showing a TOC on mobile if all sections are expanded, or having a per-page "expand/collapse all sections" toggle on mobile would mitigate the problem that the "always expanded" and "never expanded" settings have.

+1. It turns out we have do have an existing ticket for implementing the "per-page 'expand/collapse all sections'" feature you are describing above: T269954.

And while I do not think we will have time to prioritize work on implementing this feature as part of the first phase of the Talk pages project, I've added the need you expressed for it on the ticket so that our future selves will remember the need for this :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Beland, I'm curious how your experiment has gone. Do you like having everything expanded by default, or did you turn off that preference setting? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I did indeed keep that preference setting. Sometimes I do collapse a bunch of sections in order to get the equivalent of a table of contents, if a search doesn't find what I'm looking for or I just need an overview of an article. So it would still be nice to have a expand all/collapse all toggle, or some way to get a TOC while keeping everything expanded. Beland (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Pelagic

Happily, I got a banner directing me to try the prototype!

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

Tablet, no keyboard. (Safari / iOS / iPad, so "mobile" whereas a Windows tablet mightn't be?)

1. What did you find unexpected about the prototype? Tapped through before having scrolled down to the mock-ups. Initial impressions (before looking at all the mocks):

• Oh it's mobile/Minerva, not Vector 2022.
• There are some orange templates at the top of the page not suppressed/hidden. (Wondering if this would be selective, e.g. suppress Wikiproject banners but show others?)
• Styling and placement of reply links (in the initial mobile overlay view not the “read as wiki page” view).
• The ToC is just plain.
• Heading font reminds me of Structured Discussions.

2. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

• “Find the discussion that has the most people participating in it.” Can't see any indicators for this.
• “Find the discussion with the most comments.” Needed to scroll through page to see which was the biggest section.

3. What do you like about the prototype?

• Noticed that toolbar for reply tool had fewer, evenly-spaced buttons. It felt like something should be missing, but when I compared to the desktop toolbar I realised it was just that the [ B I ] buttons were rolled into the A drop-down, and the Vis/Source selector is combined. (Would like to re-try on a phone to see how the spacing feels there.)
• Reply Tool for mobile!

4. What do you wish was different about the prototype?

• The reply links on separate lines do give better separation between comments (it would be nice if there were some multi-paragraph comments to show this). But that placement, combined with the icon and blue colour, I found distracting.
• Wish the prototype was more like the mock-up, with user and comment counts. Hope to revisit this when that is available.
• In mobile overlay mode (or whatever you call it), reply entry box wasn't indented to the expected level.
• Can't Edit @Bob link in visual reply mode.

N. Other observations.

• I didn't save or attempt to edit a comment, because I don't have an anonymising proxy configured on this device and don't want to post my IP address. (Though I assume PatchDemo would get wiped at some point and it wouldn't be permanent.)
• I did tap through to “read as wiki page” and to desktop view (“mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop”) to compare. Noticed that the desktop view was classic Vector not New Vector / Vector2 / Vector 2022. Changing URL parameter to skinversion=2 didn't make a difference.
• Why oh why does this Structured Discussion board not have a visual preview for new topic in mobile mode?

Hope that helps, and thanks for sharing the prototype! Pelagic (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Aha, looking at WAID's reply to Catsmoke, I should have tried useskin=vector-2022 not skinversion=2. Ignoring the layout issues with sidebar, ToC, and tabs, the info lines look great! (“Latest comment: 5 months ago | 3 comments | 2 people in discussion”). Suspect I might prefer icons instead of text for easier visual scanning, though there are reasons to recommend both. ToC only lists number of comments, not number of participants nor freshness (“Question (3 comments)”). Pelagic (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't save or attempt to edit a comment, because I don't have an anonymising proxy configured on this device and don't want to post my IP address. (Though I assume PatchDemo would get wiped at some point and it wouldn't be permanent.)

Actually, Patch Demo is behind some kind of server-side proxy, which acts as an anonymizing proxy (and probably does other things as well, but I don’t know the internals of the system to that degree). But if you want to make sure, you can just log in with the user name Alice or Bob and the password patchdemo1 (for both accounts)—these accounts are automatically created for every Patch Demo wiki. (Or as a third option, you can also register of course, but I don’t see a reason to do so as the other two options both work.) Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Pelagic! Thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share the feedback you have about it with us here. Comments and follow up questions in response below...

There are some orange templates at the top of the page not suppressed/hidden. (Wondering if this would be selective, e.g. suppress Wikiproject banners but show others?)

The orange banners being exposed was a result of a bug that we have since fixed.

For the near-term, the templates that can appear atop talk pages (particularly at projects like en.wiki), will be stored within a dialog we are in the midst of implementing in T312309. You'll notice a bit of text that reads "Learn more about editing this page" within this mockup. If/when people tap this text, the talk page templates will become visible to them.

“Find the discussion that has the most people participating in it.” Can't see any indicators for this. “Find the discussion with the most comments.” Needed to scroll through page to see which was the biggest section.

We hear you on the difficulty you experienced.

For now, we've removed some metadata from the mobile variation of Topic Containers in T308026 to make them easier for people to read/parse.

I'm curious to learn whether the "Latest comment" information (which is what's currently shown) is what people end up valuing most or whether we'll need to make adjustments to what is shown in this more minimal mobile version.

Reply Tool for mobile!

😀 ...the New Topic Tool is there too! If you'd like, you can see both tools in production by visiting a mobile talk page at one of the following Wikipedias: Arabic, Bangla, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

The reply links on separate lines do give better separation between comments (it would be nice if there were some multi-paragraph comments to show this). But that placement, combined with the icon and blue colour, I found distracting.

Understood. In T309904, we revised how the Reply links appear on desktop to make them less distracting. Although, maybe revisions need to be made to the mobile Reply links as well.

I've filed T315054 so that we can keep track of this potential issue.

Wish the prototype was more like the mock-up, with user and comment counts. Hope to revisit this when that is available.

Question #1: Are you referring to the counts of the number of comments and people were shown beneath each mobile talk pages' section heading?

If so, I hear you and we'll need to pay attention to whether we need to revise the decision, and associated tradeoff, I referred to us as having made above.

In mobile overlay mode (or whatever you call it), reply entry box wasn't indented to the expected level.

Question #2: can you share where/how were you expecting the Reply Tool's entry box to appear?

Can't Edit @Bob link in visual reply mode.

Question #3: would it be accurate for me to think you are wanting a way to be able to do something like the below?

1. Create an @ mention for "Bob"
2. See "@Bob" appear within the Reply Tool's visual mode
3. Realize you actually wanted to mention "Bobb"
4. Tap "@Bob"
5. Add an extra "b"
6. See "@Bob" now reads "@Bobb"
7. ✅ That's it

Why oh why does this Structured Discussion board not have a visual preview for new topic in mobile mode?

Question #4: Can you say more about this? Do you recall which of the New Topic Tool's two input modes – visual and source – you were using? I ask this because the tool's source mode should offer you a visual preview of the topic you are drafting.

Ignoring the layout issues with sidebar, ToC, and tabs, the info lines look great! (“Latest comment: 5 months ago | 3 comments | 2 people in discussion”).

Question #5: Issues with the sidebar doesn't sound good...can you please describe the issues you encountered?

ToC only lists number of comments, not number of participants nor freshness (“Question (3 comments)”).

Similar to how we reduced the amount of information shown within the mobile variation of Topic Containers in favor of improving peoples' ability to quickly scan each section of the page and get a sense for the level of activity happening within it, we made a similar change to the ToC: T309463.

Assuming we "have to" reduce the amount of information about each section that we show within the ToC, is there a different bit of metadata (e.g. number of people, date of last comment) that you'd prefer be shown? If so, can you share what you think is contributing to you preferring that bit of information above the comment counts, as is currently shown? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Why oh why does this Structured Discussion board not have a visual preview for new topic in mobile mode?

Question #4: Can you say more about this? Do you recall which of the New Topic Tool's two input modes – visual and source – you were using? I ask this because the tool's source mode should offer you a visual preview of the topic you are drafting.

This comment was about this very page we’re talking on, which uses Structured Discussions (aka Flow), not the prototype, which uses DiscussionTools. It’s true that Structured Discussions has neither a preview nor a visual mode on mobile, but since it’s a legacy piece of software, being phased out, I don’t expect this issue to be resolved in Structured Discussions. Let’s hope DiscussionTools will conquer mediawiki.org soon! Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This comment was about this very page we’re talking on, which uses Structured Discussions (aka Flow), not the prototype, which uses DiscussionTools

Oh shoot, you're right, @Tacsipacsi. Somehow @Pelagic mentioning "Structured Discussions" slipped right by me :o PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Certes

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
   • Laptop
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
   • Surprisingly familiar
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
   • None
4. What do you like about the prototype?
   • Not too different from what we're used to
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?
   • Editing talk pages becomes another skill for editors (new and old) to learn. We still need to master editing articles etc. (i.e. pages which won't use this new workflow) but will now need a second set of processes for editing talk.
6. (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.
   • Discussion pages which are not in talk namespaces. English Wikipedia examples include Teahouse (relevant to new editors), AfD and the Village Pump. Certes (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you imagine the design being inappropriate in the Teahouse or a Village Pump? (I have some doubts about AFD pages myself. For example, w:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 31 has no ==Level 2== section headings.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If the new design works at the Teahouse then it may be appropriate. I just saw technical difficulties in working out which non-talk pages it should apply to. One option is simply to continue the current methods for such pages (edit them like articles) but that difference from talk pages may cause confusion. Certes (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Reply button only appears if there is an "Add new section" button at the top of the page. (This can be controlled locally with a magic word.) Do you think that would be a reasonable signal for whether you want the new discussion activity information displayed? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd never *want* the new discussion activity information displayed: I still think that having to learn two different editing systems is a step backwards, and I'll opt out if there is any facility to do so. However, the "new section" button seems like a reasonable signal for when to offer it. Certes (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to opt out, then Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion gives you all the buttons. I believe that if you go to Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion here at MediaWiki.org (specifically), then you can even opt out of any/all parts of it on all the wikis in one fell swoop. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful and thoughtful. I'll give the new system a fair try, but it's good to know that it's optional for us Luddites who are used to a more traditional way of editing. Certes (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, I've been really happy recently to see people giving Vector 2022 a fair try. It's a big change, and there are things I personally don't love about it, but it's been really heartening to see people try it out for a week or two instead of seizing onto a first impression. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Flossenträger

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
   • Laptop
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
   • nothing remarkable
3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?
   • none
4. What do you like about the prototype?
   • if it has only minor bugs: nothing (but still prefer source code editing)
5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?
   • since I'm an old school editor: no disturbing things found, okay for me.
6. (Optional) Can you imagine this design not working on some pages? If you can, please share links to these pages? It would be very helpful.
   • no Flossenträger (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Flossenträger – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share what you thought about it with us.

A quick follow up question for you: do you recall what "minor bugs" you noticed? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi PPelberg, I didn't find any Bug (in this short test) , but is there any Sw without? So if there no big issue, let's go ahead.

Sorry for it bring Mode Preise. 188.126.191.191 03:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood – thank you for following up ! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Dwain Zwerg

1. Hast du ein Mobilgerät oder einen Laptop für den Test des Prototyps verwendet?
   • Windows 11 Convertible Notebook (3:2; Firefox Nightly 106.0a1, 2022-08-31; Vector 2022)
2. Was hat dich am Prototyp überrascht oder was hattest du nicht erwartet?
3. Welche Schritte aus dem Abschnitt „Probiere den Prototyp aus“ waren kompliziert?
   • keiner
   • none
4. Was magst du an dem Prototyp?
   • Die Zähler unter den einzelnen Abschnittsüberschriften und im Inhaltsverzeichnis gefallen mir sehr gut.
   • I really like the counters under each section heading and in the table of contents.
5. Was hätte beim Prototyp anders sein sollen?
   • Als ich den Text »Bearbeite die Antwort, die du veröffentlicht hast.« gesehen habe, hatte ich erwartet, dass man jetzt endlich einen extra Button bei eigenen Kommentaren hat, um nur sie und nicht den ganzen Abschnitt zu bearbeiten. Bislang muss man aber wohl immer noch den ganzen Abschnitt bearbeiten, um einen eigenen Kommentar zu korrigieren :(
   • When I saw the text "Edit the reply you posted." I expected to finally have an extra button on my own comments to edit only them and not the whole section. But so far I guess I still have to edit the whole section to correct my own comment :(
6. (Optional) Kannst du dir vorstellen, dass dieses Design auf einigen Seiten nicht funktioniert? Wenn ja, kannst du diese verlinken? Dies würde uns sehr helfen.
   • Mir fällt keine Seite ein, wo dies der Fall sein könnte.
   • I can't imagine a site where this could be the case. Dwain Zwerg (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Dwain Zwerg – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share the experience you had with it...in both German and English!

Below are some comments in response to what you've shared.

I really like the counters under each section heading and in the table of contents.

I'm glad to hear this!

When I saw the text "Edit the reply you posted." I expected to finally have an extra button on my own comments to edit only them and not the whole section. But so far I guess I still have to edit the whole section to correct my own comment :(

We agree with you in thinking that introducing a button to edit specific comments would make a lot of peoples' lives easier :) It's an idea we've started thinking about (see T245225). Although, it's not a feature we'll be able to implement in the near-term as it depends on some more involved technical work.

I can't imagine a site where this could be the case.

Understood! Well, if and when you happen upon a page that you think would challenge the way the design works, please do let us know. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Sethemhat

何か英語を使うのが癪になってきたので日本語で書きますね。多言語フォーラムでしょうし。

「トピックロゴの投票 の キャロル によって書かれた 17 日前」「最後のコメント: 2 か月前 | 3 コメント | 2 議論に参加している人」とりあえず機能云々の前にこのおかしい日本語をどうにかしましょう。その言語の話者でない人が母語話者に違和感のない文章を書けることはほとんどありません。

#トピック「foo」、dd日前、最終更新者：Example

#最後のコメント: MMか月前　コメント: n件　議論参加者: m人

これがよいでしょう。 Sethemhat (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. If I understand correctly, you're saying that the Japanese translations are poor. I think those are just temporary for the demo, and if you register on https://translatewiki.net/ as a translator, you can provide translations here:

• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-pageframe-latestcomment/ja
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-pageframe-latestcomment-notopic/ja
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-topicheader-authorcount/ja
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-topicheader-commentcount/ja
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-topicheader-latestcomment/ja Matma Rex (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'll do that. Thanks for letting me know that. Sethemhat (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: VECTRONATOR

1. Ich habe die Demoversion über einen Laptop ausprobiert.
2. Die Schriftart der Überschrift, welche deutlich einfacher zu lesen ist als Times New Roman.
3. Die mit den meisten Teilnehmenden. Man musste alle Abschnitte manuell durchsehen.
4. Die Übersicht mit den Informationen zu wie vielen Kommentaren und wie vielen Teilnehmen war dann doch hilfreich, um eine Diskussion zu durchschauen.
5. Ich persönlich finde, der "Abschnitt hinzufügen" Button sollte auch unten erscheinen, um nicht bei langen Diskussionsseiten wieder hochscrollen zu müssen. VECTRONATOR (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @VECTRONATOR – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share this feedback with us.

I've posted a couple of comments and questions in response below in English. Please let me know if it would be helpful for me to try to rephrase anything I've written to make it easier to understand :)

Comments and Questions

Die Schriftart der Überschrift, welche deutlich einfacher zu lesen ist als Times New Roman.

I'm glad to hear you found the talk page section font easy to read.

Die mit den meisten Teilnehmenden. Man musste alle Abschnitte manuell durchsehen.

Right now, the table of contents, as you seem to have discovered, only includes information about the number of comments in a section. I understand how this makes it difficult to see, at a glance, the discussion with the most number of people participating within it.

For context, we initially designed the table of contents to also include the number of people participating in each discussion. Although, that made the table of contents difficult for people to read.

Die Übersicht mit den Informationen zu wie vielen Kommentaren und wie vielen Teilnehmen war dann doch hilfreich, um eine Diskussion zu durchschauen.

It is helpful to know you found this information useful.

Ich persönlich finde, der "Abschnitt hinzufügen" Button sollte auch unten erscheinen, um nicht bei langen Diskussionsseiten wieder hochscrollen zu müssen.

We agree. In fact, we are actively working on an improvement to make it easier to access the "Add section" button regardless of where you are on the page. You can see the designs we are exploring here. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Wandelndes Lexikon

1. Ich habe die Demoversion über einen Laptop ausprobiert.
2. Die Anzeige der letzten Bearbeitung zu dem Thema, welche echt pracktisch ist.
3. keine.
4. Die Anzeige der letzten Bearbeitung sowie der Anzahl der Beiträge und Diskutierenden zu dem Thema?
5. Die Anzeigen mit den Diskussionsinformationen könnte etwas weniger hoch sein?
6. Nein. Wandelndes Lexikon (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Es freut mich, das die Anzeige der letzten Bearbeitung sowie der Anzahl der Beiträge und Diskutierenden zu dem Thema dir gefahlt. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Wandelndes Lexikon – than you for taking the time to try the prototype and share this feedback with us.

4. Die Anzeige der letzten Bearbeitung sowie der Anzahl der Beiträge und Diskutierenden zu dem Thema?

It sounds like you're saying that you would value the information that appears beneath each section title to be adjusted...can you please describe what led you to suggest this? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the informations and because of these I find the discussion clearer and more structured. Wandelndes Lexikon (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the informations and because of these I find the discussion clearer and more structured.

Understood! We're glad to hear this, @Wandelndes Lexikon. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: RobbieIanMorrison

1. used a laptop
2. no surprises but also seems very responsive
3. none, but I didn't explore any corner cases, such as using obscure templates
4. the clean design
5. none at this stage RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @RobbieIanMorrison – thank you for taking the time to try out the prototype and share this feedback with us.

I'm glad to hear that you seemed to use the new design without any issue. If at any point you notice any issues with the design, please do let us know :) PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Remagoxer

1. A laptop
2. Not really, although the spacing between "Talk:" and the name of the page is slightly odd
3. Editing a comment is still somewhat unintuitive for newer users - I knew about the edit source button, but I suspect most newer users would expect a separate "edit comment" button
4. It's a lot cleaner and more modern than the current design for talk pages
5. I'm somewhat :/ on the font (I'm not a huge fan of bolded Arial), although I appericate this is a wider skin issue that would require a lot more development/discussion. I'm also not a fan of the space between "Talk:" and the name of the talk page; if you want to make it more clear that these are "talk pages" it might be better to use some kind of box/icon instead of the space?
6. I can't think of any off the top of my head, although I imagine project-space talk pages might be a bit problematic in some cases (at least on en-wiki) Rexogamer (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Remagoxer! I appreciate you taking the time to try out the prototype and share the feedback you had about it with us here. Some comments and questions in response below...

Comments/Questions

1. ...the spacing between "Talk:" and the name of the page is slightly odd

"Odd" in the sense that it's not what you're used to? "Odd" in the sense that you are concerned that it could interfere with a workflow you've come to depend on? Something else? Note: I see that you mentioned this spacing in "4." as well.

2. Editing a comment is still somewhat unintuitive for newer users - I knew about the edit source button, but I suspect most newer users would expect a separate "edit comment" button

Good call and we agree with you. In the future, we hope to be able to offer people the ability to edit specific comments. Although, that feature depends on some more involved technical work that the Editing Team will not be able to prioritize as part of this initial phase of the Talk Pages Project.

3. I'm somewhat :/ on the font (I'm not a huge fan of bolded Arial), although I appericate this is a wider skin issue that would require a lot more development/discussion.

I hear you and I appreciate you saying as much. I think the new font is going to take some getting used to.

4. I can't think of any off the top of my head, although I imagine project-space talk pages might be a bit problematic in some cases (at least on en-wiki)

5. I can't think of any off the top of my head, although I imagine project-space talk pages might be a bit problematic in some cases (at least on en-wiki)

We share the assumption that there might be adjustments we might need to make to ensure this design works well in the project namespace. For this reason, we're constraining these changes to the article and user talk namespace to start.

Once we're confident they're working and effective in these namespaces, we're thinking we'll reconsider offering this design in more namespaces where discussions happen. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries - I'm happy to help however I can.

In regards to the spacing, I think it's just that I'm not really used to it - off the top of my head, I can't think of any workflows in particular that this would impact.

I don't really have much more to say at the moment, although I appreciate the work y'all are doing to make talk pages easier to use ^^ Rexogamer (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the spacing, I think it's just that I'm not really used to it - off the top of my head, I can't think of any workflows in particular that this would impact.

Thank you for putting some additional thought to this and understood. Note: if/when you happen upon a case where the space between "Talk:" and the name of the page could cause issues, I'd value knowing :)

I don't really have much more to say at the moment, although I appreciate the work y'all are doing to make talk pages easier to use ^^

Understood and we appreciate you stopping by to see what we're up to and share what you think about it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Kommentar"

Das Design gibt den falschen Eindruck bei Diskussionsseiten handele es sich um eine Art den Artikel frei kommentieren zu können. Tatsächlich dienen sie zumindest in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia in der Regel allein der Verbesserung des Inhaltes des dazugehörenden Artikels. Das Design könnte da Missverständnisse aufkommen lassen. Habitator terrae (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @An inhabitant of the earth – I appreciate you taking the time to review the prototype and share what you think about it with us here.

Assuming the translation below is accurate, can you please share what is leading you to think that the design will cause people to use talk pages in ways that will be distracting/unhelpful?

---

Google Translation: "The design gives the wrong impression that talk pages are a way of freely commenting on the article. In fact, at least in the German-language Wikipedia, they usually only serve to improve the content of the associated article . The design could give rise to misunderstandings." PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: MasterQuestionable

I would recommend your Excellencies check the following for some hints on the talk page design:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style?oldid=1108339662#Hyphen-Traumas
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterQuestionable
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byte?oldid=1106446452#%5B20220818%5D_On_recent_editing_that_had_references_%22broken%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Portal?oldid=1104009396#Use_of_%22Johnny-automatic-scales-of-justice.svg%22

MasterQuestionable (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No one reasonable does serious writing in one-liner seriously.

We may rely on syntax highlighting (and alike sophisticated post-rendering) to aid readability, but not which to support readability.

Further related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterQuestionable/6

MasterQuestionable (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend your Excellencies check the following for some hints on the talk page design:

hi @MasterQuestionable – can you please say more about the above? What are you wanting to use the links you shared to tell/show us? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for your attention.

I fear I would have to redirect most of the discussion to my talk page (aforementioned): as the board's posting mechanism seems to break things seriously.

"for some hints on the talk page design": including general formatting (through my usage), and advanced topic management (on my talk page).

MasterQuestionable (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: mizenhead

Laptop

Was hat dich am Prototyp überrascht oder was hattest du nicht erwartet? Inhaltsverzeichnis am linken Seitenrand - zusätzliche Statistik (Anzahl der Teilnehmer/Abschnitt)

Welche Schritte aus dem Abschnitt "Probiere den Prototyp aus" waren kompliziert? captcha jedes Mal einzutragen - auch zum preview, was ich häufig nutze

Was magst du an dem Prototyp? sieht etwas aufgeräumter aus als bisher, etwas luftiger als die bisherige wiki-Formatierung. Aber dadurch geht auch etwas Struktur verloren - unentschieden

Was hätte beim Prototyp anders sein sollen? /

(Optional) Kannst du dir vorstellen, dass dieses Design auf einigen Seiten nicht funktioniert? Wenn ja, kannst du diese verlinken? Dies würde uns sehr helfen. zu wenig Erfahrung, daher keine Antwort 82.113.98.39 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: Jaw Salvager

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?

Desktop PC.

2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?

The order the text and numbers are displayed is odd. This have to be corrected.

Please see the suggested corrections below:

1) TOP

If below is what you want to say:

Latest comment: {{aged}} by {{posted-by}} in topic {{topic-name}}

Then make the translation appear this way:

最新のコメント: {{aged}} | トピック: {{topic-name}} | 投稿者: {{posted-by}}

Reverse translation:

Latest comment: {{aged}} | Topic: {{topic-name}} | Posted by: {{posted-by}}

The demo as it is mean something like this, which is odd:

Latest comment: 2 days ago written by TopicVotes's Carol

2) By Topic

Likewise, if this is what you want to say:

Latest comment: {{aged}} | {{n-comments}} comments | {{n-participants}} people in discussion

Then this is how it should be displayed:

最新のコメント: {{aged}} | コメント数: {{n-comments}} | 参加者数: {{n-participants}}

Reverse translation:

Latest comment: {{aged}} | No. of Comments: {{n-comments}} | No. of Participants: {{n-participants}}

3) "Subscribe"

For "Subscribe" in this case, "更新を通知" fits better.

Reverse translation: Notify updates

You have 「最新の」and「最後の」for the same word "Latest". Either will do, but let's stick to 「最新の」in this case. (Like I did above.) 「最後の」is more like "last". They're interchangeable in many cases , if not always.

3. Which steps in the "Try the Prototype" section did you find difficult to complete?

None.

4. What do you like about the prototype?

It's nice to have a quick view over these stats.

5. What do you wish was different about the prototype?

Showing the number of comments and "latest" post in the "Contents" summary for PC (the same way as in the mobile version) would be nice.

Hope this helps. Jaw Salvager (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Jaw Salvager – thank you for taking the time to share the feedback you have about the prototype as well as the text strings that appear within it!

Showing the number of comments and "latest" post in the "Contents" summary for PC (the same way as in the mobile version) would be nice.

Two follow up questions for you:

1. By "Contents summary" are you referring to the box that appears on the left side of the desktop version of the prototype that shows the names of each section and the number of comments within each section?
2. Assuming the answer to the question above is "yes," can you please share what might be leading you to suggest that information about the latest comment within each section be added to the "Contents" summary portion of the page? For example, how might having the "latest comment" information within the table of contents box help you? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PPelberg (WMF), yes, that's right, I mean that box.

Imagine there's a talk page that have multiple sections where ongoing comments are being made here and there. With the "latest comment" info in the Contents summary, I'll be able to see whether there is a relatively new comment in a section other than the one that will be indicated at the top, without having to scroll through the whole talk page. It will be particularly useful when a talk page has many sections with long comments. Obviously, for a talk page with only one or two section with short comments, it won't be that much useful. Jaw Salvager (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The translations on Patch Demo are temporary and need to be redone for the live sites anyway on translatewiki.net (separate account required). Feel free to put the correct translations and/or fix the existing ones there. Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Tacsipacsi, thanks for your info.

I opened an account over there and am awaiting my account upgrade for edit right now. Jaw Salvager (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this guidance, @Tacsipacsi. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I can fix the translations on the PatchDemo prototype wiki if you give me the right codes. You can see the current versions at:

• https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/300e52d41c/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-pageframe-latestcomment/ja
• https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/300e52d41c/wiki/MediaWiki:Discussiontools-topicheader-latestcomment/ja

(Click 'view source' to see the wikitext. Try this link: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/300e52d41c/wiki/Talk:Main_Page?uselang=qqx to see where each message appears, and https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/300e52d41c/wiki/Talk:Main_Page?uselang=ja to see page in Japanese.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback: YOUR USERNAME

Be aware that I tested this and mostly wrote out my comments quite a while ago, but I locally saved the incomplete work. I hope my comments are not out of date. Among the general comments I included "FIX THIS" to single out specific items.

1. Did you use mobile device or a laptop to test the prototype?
   • Desktop.
2. What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
   • The demo config defaults to Visual mode. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I hope and expect that this is an insignificant configuration-error in the prototype. Anything that is not explicitly intended to be part of the test should be configured the same as it the actual currently deployed configuration.
   • As other editors mentioned the screenshot shows a sidebar table of contents, which I didn't have on either of the test pages. I'm wondering if that may be a skins issue? The default skin is Vector, and like quite a few editors I use Monobook, but I believe the image might be based on Vector2022? If that is the explanation then it's not a major issue, but in general it may be a good idea to try to do prototyping in the actual default environment.
   • FIX THIS: The section heading horizontal lines were unexpectedly moved. Random inconsistent page elements just causes confusion. Anyone who arrives at a Talk page for the first time is obviously already familiar with article pages. They are either consciously or subconsciously aware that section headings have a line BELOW them.
   • I wasn't anticipating the new "Latest comment etc." info below the section heading. Meh. It doesn't seem very useful to me, but I won't object if others say it's useful.
     • FIX THIS: While writing that I tried to copy-paste the new info below the header. It didn't work, which was both unexpected and a rather unpleasant experience. I reflexively tried to select the text several times in varying ways, before I realized that it was not me botching the selection. I'm guessing you explicitly defined that text to be unselectable? I'm guessing you didn't want it inadvertently cluttering copy-pastes? Either the information is useful enough that it should be copyable, or it is useless clutter that shouldn't be on the page at all.
3. Find the discussion that has been edited most recently.
   • Failed. FIX THIS. The displayed information is wrong. You guys seem to keep forgetting that these are wikipages. Section subscriptions and last-edited NEED to update when the section is edited. Discussions can undergo major changes via the edit button (which may include an unsigned comment, or a signed-but-unrecognized comment, or which may make major changes to the section without any "comment" at all). Those edits can be extremely important. If an edit affects multiple sections it should trigger for each affected section.
4. Find the discussion that has the most people participating in it.
   • Why? The only time we care about person-counts are cases where were we explicitly need to evaluate what each person said before including them in any count.
5. Find the discussion with the most comments.
   • Why? This seems even more useless than the number-of-people count.
6. Post a reply in the discussion.
   • No problem.
7. Edit the reply you posted.
   • I had no problem using the standard edit button to do this. I know you were planning on building something new for this, so the question itself caused me to (unsuccessfully) stop and search for anything new.
8. start a discussion about a new topic.
   • Apparently the New Section button has been removed and replaced with the New Topic link. I don't know if you realize this, but that involves notable loss of functionality. Due to design choices New Comment and New Topic have narrowly tailored constraints and limitations in functionality, based on assumptions that content is a "comment" and what a "comment" is assumed to look like. The New Section button provides the full power and flexibility of the edit button, with the single distinction that it appends to the end of the page. For example posting an RFC might involve posting several sections and subsections, and it will not end in a signature. The new tool fails-by-design on such content. That said, such posts can still be made with the general edit button. There is some loss of convenience and it adds risk of edit conflict. That's annoying, but I doubt we want to keep both New Section and New Topic. I really wish the tools had been designed better in the first place, able to fully replace the New Section button with no loss in functionality. Alsee (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)