Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Enquête 2015 sur les souhaits de la communauté/Notifications

< Community Wishlist Survey 2015
This page is a translated version of the page Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Notifications and the translation is 100% complete.
Other languages:

Marquer une notification comme non lue

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T73564

Parfois, il arrive que je n'ai pas le temps de répondre ou de traiter toutes les alertes que j'ai reçues. Mais si j'ouvre la notification, l'alerte disparaît et avec le temps, il est possible que j'en oublie. Je propose donc d'ajouter un moyen de marquer une notification comme non lue, afin que l'alert Echo reste active. --AlessioMela (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
This will probably happen soon-ish. See phab:T73564. --Glaisher (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. ETA unknown, but already being worked on. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support I tend to leave notifications until I have time to take action on them, it would be nice to know what they are and then leave it for later. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support, same--Martinligabue (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Helder 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support RoodyAlien (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Risker (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Rzuwig► 09:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support — Arkanosis ✉ 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --SuperJew (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Yeza (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Excellent idea. (Would anyone consider the alternative that the notification stays lit/colored until all notifications are clicked?) Corinne (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support I'm not sure I'd want this for all notifications but for messages it would be nice. --Tgr (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modifier la fonction « remercier » pour pouvoir remercier les contributeurs anonymes

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T63022

Il arrive fréquemment que je veuille remercier un contributeur anonyme pour une bonne modification. Cela devrait être possible. (Oui, je sais que les adresses IP ne sont pas statiques en général.) Merci, --Gnom (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Endorsed Unanonymous thanks for this, although an anonymous editor might not care to be thanked - LeoRomero (talk)
  Oppose The Thanks feature has a very negative effect on Wikipedia. I have explained why in the section above. Why don't you write a personal message, or use the WikiLove extension? Thanking anonymous editors with the Thanks feature is technically impossible, because IP's aren't static. It would be weird if I use Wikipedia on my phone and I suddenly end up with a long Thanks log for edits I haven't made. Very confusing for new people. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed I've wanted to do this several times. In addition, I think the thanks should be displayed in the page history, not tucked away at the thanks log. Waldir (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldir: Page history??? Do you mean user talk page? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean in the page history of the diff that was thanked. Next to the undo links, for example. After all, aren't thanks meant to be public? I never understood how this intent was considered materialized, when they're only visible to the thanked user and in an obscure log few people would ever visit deliberately.
  Oppose per above. This extension should not even exist. If you want to thank someone, go to their user talk page and thank them. MER-C (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed positive feedback is superior to negative feedback; if you delete thanks extension, also delete all the automated warning templates for the same reason. Slowking4 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: ??? Did you read the section above, especially the stuff inside the collapse template? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes i did. the same logic that deprecates thanks also can be used against template talk warnings. blow them all up. all of the newbies i talk to like thanks; are you then elevating your cynicism above their naivite ? Slowking4 (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: I do not understand what you mean, and it seems that you do not understand what I mean. The logic I used against the Thanks feature cannot be applied to template talk warnings. I am not claiming that you shouldn't be allowed to Thank newbies, the preferred outcome is that the Thank feature is replaced by WikiLove. This means that you will be able to send cute kittens and lovely snacks and even barnstars to IP editors. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: by the way, I had also read your opinions in the collapsed box before commenting, and although I understood your points, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion. I think it would be courteous of you to do the same and stop commenting on every post endorsing this suggestion as if your view of the issue is the only possible correct one. --Waldir (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed I have also wanted to do this on multiple occasions. I suspect in most cases, it'll disappear into "the Void", never to be seen by the person of interest behind the IP, but still... And, who knows? Maybe the next person editing from that IP will be greeted by an unexpected "Thanks", and become intrigued by the project!! IJBall (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed I would have used it on multiple occasions. IPs will change, maybe we can think of a short time window in which the option is available. Personally, I would also like to know how much IPs are thanked compared to registered users. Maybe we can learn something very useful from this statistics, or some important feedback for scoring systems. I have seen no negative effect on Wikipedia from the "Thanks" feature so far, but if there is any concern, we can leave it as an experimental feature for some platforms and see what happens. IMHO, it will be ok.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support בנימין (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support I mean, we block IPs, so let's thank them as well. Even if it was another user on the same IP, no difference. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support IJBall (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Alternatively, it may done by an automated pasting of a template to the IP talk page. --Leyo (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Much needed. A talk page template would work too, but preferably the whole action should be one click (plus a confirming click). Gap9551 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Martinligabue (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Tdslk (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support In addition, I think users Leyo and Debresser both have valid points. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose Encouraging anonymous editors will limit meaningful communication between editors and increase admin workload for problems presently resolved through user talk pages. Thewellman (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Helder 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Tar Lócesilion (queta) 00:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Comment Who are we thanking, and will the person we are thanking know we're thanking them in many cases, especially if we thank a particular period of time after the edit? This might make sense if the thanking is limited to very recent edits. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support After additional consideration, as long as a time limit is applied, I can support this. Generally, we don't leave a warning about an edit more than 24 hours after it occurred (although nothing stops us from doing so, admittedly), so a Thank after 24 hours is probably useless. Think of this in terms of using up processor time and database inserts/queries -- do we want to encourage actions that likely will not be seen? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Useful for recent edits. Regards, Kertraon (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Chaoborus (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Litlok (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support. It can attract anonymous editors even more. --Renessaince (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support --Usien6 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) // Pretty easy to implement and, as Renessaince commented, it can attract anonymous editors even more.[reply]
  22.   Comment If it is considered a problem that a thank-you may never reach the contributor, this is equally true for IP warning messages. If anything, there's nothing lost if a thank-you reaches the wrong person, or no-one at all. A vandalism warning reaching the wrong person is worse for sure, and we accept that possibility. Gap9551 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Yes, if we can warn them we should be able to thank them too. PamD (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support SteveStrummer (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support YBG (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support Rzuwig► 09:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support — Arkanosis ✉ 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support — Fylbecatulous talk 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support Have wanted to do this several times. Even if they never see it, it would be good to have stats on how valuable the contributions of anons are. I think that many are hesitant newbies with the specialist knowledge that wikipedia needs, the ones that we too often drive away. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support would be useful especially to thank anon users who revert vandalism (if they already have a welcome message) KylieTastic (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support - if possible, this would be great — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support I've wanted to do this several times. In addition, I think the thanks should be displayed in the page history, not tucked away at the thanks log. --Waldir (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support Again, why has it taken so long to suggest this? Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Oppose The Thanks feature is fine for thanking established editors, but for "white hat" IPs I prefer to send a talk page message "Thanks, welcome to WP, here's some links and why not create an account?" Noyster (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Neutral In general, I think that editing should only be allowed with an account, for the numerous technical-social problems we have observed over a long time. --Ziko (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support I agree with comments above that it might encourage some anons to edit more and create an account. Is there a way to ensure (automatically) that at least one Welcome template has already been posted on the IP user's talk page before simple thank you's can be posted? Corinne (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support Abyssal (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support I often want to do this --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support --Tgr (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Comment: (support). Also, would be nice if anons could thank other anons, and thank registered users. If this is implemented, suggest doing it right: some kinds of IP addresses should NOT be thanked (open proxies and highly-dynamic cellular networks and countries where all residents are bottlenecked through a governmental gateway such as Qatar allegedly is come to mind). Perhaps some kind of deadline, after the edit by the anon was made? If the deadline was variable, on a per-IP-range basis, admins could set the deadline to "zero seconds" for the open proxies and governmental gateway cases, set it to two minutes for the highly-dynamic consumer IP-range cases, set it to 24 hours for some other cases, and set it to a month for the quasi-static single-household cases, perhaps. Furthermore, strongly suggest that implementation result in an output which is a usertalk message: from experience working with beginning users, they are already easily confused by all the places messages can be received (the article-talkpage, their usertalkpage, my usertalkpage, the teahouse, on noticeboards, afc-templates in draftspace, et cetera). Better that when somebody clicks the thanks-button for an edit made by an anon, that thanks-message is left in the form of a traditional usertalkpage template, rather than in some kind of notifications-for-anons-which-differs-from-their-usertalkpage. 75.108.94.227 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Désactiver la possibilité d'être remercié

Certaines personnes (dont moi-même) voudraient pouvoir désactiver la fonction « remercier », c'est-à-dire que d'autres contributeurs ne puissent pas utiliser le lien « remercier » sur leurs contributions. La désactivation et l'activation de cette fonctionnalité devraient être inscrites dans le journal des remerciements. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
If you simply just don't want to get the notification, that somebody has thanked you, you can opt-out in your preferences. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that is not what I want. The Thanks-feature reduces meaningful interaction between humans and replaces it with a Facebook-style Like button. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: If I read you right, your problem with Thanks is that it's impersonal. So how about we make Thanks more personal? Are you okay with that? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making Thanks "more personal" is a messier idea than it may seem. The existing Thank system has already been abused for harassment, the Thanks log would need to be subject to Oversighting, and there were reasons the Thanks log was deliberately designed to be impossible to connect to the specific edit being Thanked. Alsee (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: How would you make Thanks more personal? How is Thanks abused to harass? How to prevent the abuse you cited? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LeoRomero: I believe that an imperfect Wikipedia article triggers something similar to a fight-or-flight response. You can chose to stay and improve it, or you can simply close the tab and move on with your life. For example, if I see an article about Israel/Palestine that is not neutral I will flee, and if I see a typo on a random article I will probably fight it.

Of course there is a grey area in the middle. When I read stuff like this or that or that then I will usually remove it but sometimes I ignore it.

Facilitating laziness has downsides. For example, it is much easier for me to tag an article than it is to remove the POV and try to find neutral sources to create a more balanced article. I understand that tagging has its benefits, but I am a lazy person so I end up tagging certain problems instead of actually fixing that problem. If I didn't have the option to tag problems then I would've fixed many of those problems.

Before the Thanks-feature the people who wished to extend their gratitude to someone who did something useful would write a personal handwritten thank you note on their talk page. One of the reasons why they did that is because there was no other way; this was the laziest method available. The WikiLove extension is a good idea, it makes it easier for people to leave adorable kittens or lovely snacks on other peoples talkpages, and most users of this extension still write a short message explaining why they think that that person deserves it.

Those short thank-you notes have multiple benefits, they make people happy, people are proud of a talkpage full of thank you messages (don't underestimate the importance of this, they see them frequently and they know others see these messages too), and often people end up having a pleasant conversation with the person who wrote the thank you message which may result in a collaboration. These messages are the only thing they get in return for their volunteerwork. They encourage people to keep up the good work.

The Thanks feature makes it a lot easier to thank people (which reduces the value, this is called inflation). But instead of a personal handwritten message you get an impersonal +1 (or Facebook Like). It is hidden away in some sort of log (how impersonal can you get?) and other people are unable to see it (no more bragging rights). No one looks at the Thanks log, not even their own. Looking at my own Thanks log makes me sad.

If you are a gnome fixing typos then you can fix thousands of typos without any human contact whatsoever. All you get is a logbook like this. If the Thanks feature didn't exist then at least a handful of the people who have used it to thank me would've written a real, personal, message which would actually have value, both to the writer and the recipient.

Of course you still get messages telling you you did something wrong...

People are worried about editor retention and the lack of female contributors but they don't seem to realize it that stuff like the Thanks feature is a part of that problem, not the solution.

@The Quixotic Potato: Solid analysis, thanks. And lolz on Of course you still get messages telling you you did something wrong... Agree that tagging pages rather than old-school improvement has made it super easy to be lazy, and is in other ways counterproductive (f.e demoralizing to contributors who gave heart & soul to the page). Also agree that we ought to give thoughtful thanks, not just Thanks. Also also agree that Thanks ought to be visible on User Talk. Not clear to me how Thanks hurts retention and inclusion, but it doesn't have to be clear to me: I get your key points. I think Thanks is a good idea that can be made better. I'll give this more thought, and maybe post a relevant suggestion of my own. Anything else I ought to think about? - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LeoRomero: You haven't explained why you believe Thanks is "a good idea that can be made better". I just explained that it is terrible. The Thanks feature hurts retention and inclusion because people who were in a bad wikimood used to look at their talkpage full of handwritten thank you messages, which would improve their wikimood. Nowadays many talkpages are lists of complaints and people give and receive fewer barnstars and wikilove because using the Thanks feature is much easier for lazy people. That has been replaced by a log full of meaningless Facebook Likes. Many people who are here today are here because someone left them a personal thank you message on their talkpage after they made their first couple of edits. Of course you can believe that improving Wikipedia should be enough of an reward in itself, but in reality things don't work that way. Positive interaction between Wikipedians and new Wikipedians is extremely important. If you believe in kindness, then endorse this proposal, I mean, it is kind to allow people to opt out of functionality they dislike, right? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: [PS: Does ping work here? I haven't been getting your pings.] (I've never written a PREscript before, might want to make that a thing). You're right - I do believe that improving Wikipedia is its own reward. My motivations tend to be intrinsic; I haven't ever looked at my Thanks log (didn't even know it existed). But (I'm almost embarrassed to say) I do get the warm & fuzzies when I see Thanks in my inbox, so totly get your wikimood points.
I think Thanks is a good idea, because
  1. it's a good idea to say thanks. You and I agree on that. We also agree that
  2. humans have evolved to conserve energy (t.i we're lazy). Most people can't be bothered to craft the little thank you notes that you and I write. Astonishing that they can even manage the two clicks it takes to send Thanks.
  3. it's good to give the lazies an easy way to express gratitude; better than not practicing gratitude at all.
  4. Thanks was part of the Kindness Initiative (is that still a thing?), and as you noted, kindness is a big deal to me. I believe that it's essential that we move beyond Civility and develop a Culture of Kindness (my initial thoughts and research on that is here).
I think Thanks needs improvement, because of the unintended consequences that you noted (which hadn't even occurred to me, so Thank You)
  1. it ought to enable more than superficial engagements among community members - at least explain in less than 140 characters why you're sending Thanks
  2. it ought to appear prominently on User Talk, f.e a bot-made new section/topic entry that says something like "You just got thanked by [[ ]]! Wikipedia thanks you too."
Did I miss anything? You mentioned the WikiLove extension - can that be activated when someone clicks on Thank?
Having said aaaallll that (this may be the longest user note I'd ever written), I do agree that "it is kind to allow people to opt out of functionality they dislike". So despite all my misgivings, I endorse.
With deepest thanks,
LeoRomero (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WikiLove can be activated when someone clicks on Thank, it would be very very easy for a programmer to do that.
You wrote: "it's good to give the lazies an easy way to express gratitude; better than not practicing gratitude at all" but in reality the people who weren't too lazy are now using this lazy method and the people who weren't expressing gratitude still aren't.
The problem is not just that you are unable to express WHY you are sending Thanks, but also that you are unable to respond to being Thanked. This is a great conversation starter that can lead to friendship and collaborations.
I don't know why pinging doesn't work. I think the solution is as follows:
  • Remove the Thanks feature. Remove the Thanks log.
  • Replace it with a WikiLove feature. So instead of a Thanks link you get a WikiLove link. When clicking on the WikiLove link you can give a barnstar, a kitten or a snack and you are encouraged to leave a personal message (just like the WikiLove extension is doing currently). The result shouldnt be hidden away in some log somewhere, it should be displayed prominently on the user's talkpage.
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: WikiLove it! I'm superbusy right now, but as soon as I can, I'll "remix" (pinch) your ideas, and make a wish of my own. Unless you can get to it first, so I don't mess up your work (and so I get to endorse you again). Snack included with this thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: As the author of both the WikiLove and Thanks extensions, I guess I should comment here. The two extensions were designed to compliment each other. WikiLove made it easier to send personalized public thanks, while the Thanks extension enabled quick thanks without interrupting an editor's workflow. While it's a legitimate concern that letting people give "lazy" thanks reduces personalized messages of thanks, the existing data does not support such a conclusion. If you look at the chart below, you can see a history of the usage of WikiLove on the English Wikipedia. In about the middle of the chart is a red line showing when the Thanks extension was enabled (end of May, 2013). If your hypothesis was correct, we would expect to see a decline in WikiLove usage around that point. While there is a very gradual decline from June 2012 to today (and an unexplained steep decline between April 2012 and June 2012), usage does not seem to have been significantly affected by the introduction of Thanks. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 
Chart showing history of WikiLove usage on English Wikipedia. Red line indicates the introduction of the Thanks feature.
@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): Hi Ryan! Nice graph. Unfortunately that is a straw man. I didn't claim that the Thanks feature reduced the amount of WikiLove messages (AFAIK). I was saying that the Thanks feature reduced the amount of personal handwritten thank you messages. But gathering data for that is a bit more difficult... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kind of extrapolating :) I have no idea how I would get any useful data on personal handwritten thank you messages. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to test the theory for (for example) a month or so, by simply popping up the WikiLove dialog when someone clicks on the Thanks link. I think people will use it less frequently, but I also think that both the sender and the recipient value those messages way more than a Thank. You can't measure that kinda stuff. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: It's an interesting proposal, but how would you judge the success or failure of the experiment? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): Not with hard data. We both like numbers, but sometimes it is (almost) impossible to get meaningful statistics, especially when we are talking about human emotions. I think this is one of those cases. But you can ask around a bit, many people here proudly display the barnstars they've received and they remember who gave them and why. Receiving an adorable kitten or a snack makes them happy, and after they've received them they still regularly see them on their talkpage. But I don't think many people have fond memories of the time someone clicked the Thank link and they received something that I would compare to a Facebook Like. If you ask some oldtimers here, who have experience with receiving WikiLove and Thanks, then I think they will prefer WikiLove, but maybe that isn't quantifiable. But of course there were also no statistics about the usage of Thanks when it was introduced.
The WikiLove extension is an excellent idea, and the idea to stick a link on the diff compare screen to thank people is also good, but it should lead to the WikiLove popup (or something similar). And if you totally disagree with me and refuse to do an experiment, would you be so kind to allow people to opt out? If people don't see a Thank link near my name then they'll be forced to thank me manually.
The edits I make are usually incredibly boring. For example, I've made hundreds of edits like this one or this one or this one, so it is important to stay motivated. It is very difficult to explain why, maybe I am crazy, but I've spent a beautiful sunny day inside, manually fixing problems caused by a bot a long time ago. Someone noticed, and I received a barnstar with a kind message attached. If I had to chose between that barnstar and 61 Thanks then I would prefer to keep the barnstar. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think where we disagree is that I don't believe that Thanks has a significantly negative effect on sending barnstars and other personalized messages. If a lot of people support your proposal, however, we'll be happy to consider it. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: @Ryan Kaldari (WMF): Thanks for all the thoughts and data (I heart charts). How about this Suggestion: Tweak Revision History to (undo | thank | love)? LeoRomero (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC) PS Ryan, I didn't know until now that you did both Thanks and WikiLove. WOW what an honor to meet you.[reply]

Just undeploy this extension and be done with it. MER-C (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: Do you have anything to add to TQP's analysis? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed LeoRomero (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose The Thanks feature obviously doesn't replace manual thanks. So you won't get more manual thanks if you get out of this. Yann (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose If the proposal is to do away with the Thank feature, rather than just to allow people to opt out, I'm strongly against it. I think Thank is one of the best recent additions. It serves a different purpose from kittens or handcrafted thank-you messages, as a quick acknowledgement which can be both sent and received with minimal interruption of the work-flow. If I reply to a "helpme", a "Thank" tells me the answer was useful, and I do not need to check back on the page; it also gives me a small warm glow, which is enough. I have no interest in having my talk page full of thank-you messages or WikiLoves. If Thank were removed, some people might acknowledge small kindnesses with written messages instead, but I think more would not bother, and on balance we would lose. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support Lugnuts (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Logical option. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Comment Does this mean that in the edit history of a page the "Thank" button/link would not appear next to particular user names? Or that it would complete the action and the 'thanked' editor would never see the Thank? Ckoerner (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support though, it would seem simpler to just have an option to opt out of notifications (sort of along the lines of user Ckoerner's comment). -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose There is already a preference for not being notified about a Thanks. Totally opting out doesn't change anything significant for the opt-outer, and may even be harmful to the wiki, as editors wishing to thank someone who has opted out won't have the opportunity to get the good feeling of thanking. This is not a commentary on whether we should have had a Thanks feature in the first place, but rather that the development of this proposal serves no essential purpose. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose- unless there is an opt of out templates on user talk, by the same reasoning. Slowking4 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  8.   Oppose When somebody don't want this feature, it is possible to disable notifications in prefereces. And this difference can be confusing I think. --Urbanecm (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose You can disable notifications. I would say I've only ever thanked and been thanked for things where 'thanks' says all that needs to be said. I don't think removing the option for someone to thank you will encourage them to post a 'real' thanks message to you. I would not want a talk page message for every fix I do that someone wants to say thanks for. KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Oppose you can already disable notifications. similarly, you cannot opt of out receiving barnstars but you can send requests to editors who give them to you not to do so in the future — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose Opting not to receive notifications is effectively the same thing. This would be fixing without it being broken. Courcelles 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose Stevie is the man raises a good point, but more importantly than not being able to thank someone and get the good feeling for it, is the confusion of the thank feature not working for certain editors, which would confuse the thanker who might think it's a software error. Of course, this could be avoided by for example making the thank link inert and struck-out, and with a tooltip saying something like "this user does not wish to be thanked", but honestly I fail to see how that would benefit thankees who have opted-out from the notifications, while it increases the complexity for everyone else. --Waldir (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rappels de notifications

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T88781

Voir ici. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issu de la description de Phab : "En tant qu'utilisateur, j'aimerais pourvoir me souvenir d'une tâche, après une période de temps configurable." Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Comment en:Template:Alarm clock is a poor-man's substitute: Put it at the top of a page you frequently visit and which is frequently purged, such as your talk page. It won't raise any notifications but at least it will change the first time the page is purged after an alarm-timestamp passes. Davidwr/talk 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed it would e nice to send your future self notices. Davidwr/talk 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. --Stryn (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --MGChecker (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support .--Grind24 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Gap9551 (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --YodinT 02:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Martinligabue (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support tufor (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Papuass (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support This seems really useful, and I would personally appreciate it -- though external calendars with reminder features do achieve the same effect. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Helder 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Yes. Regards, Kertraon (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Comment I'm trying to figure out how this would serve a wiki. Can't people just set alarms on their computing devices? Why duplicate that in the wiki? Also, someone would have to visit the wiki to get the alarm, so its timing would oftentimes be worthless. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Risker (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support Litlok (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support Rzuwig► 09:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support --AS (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support -- SantiLak (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support --The Polish (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support Courcelles 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support A no-brainer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support This would be very helpful. I hope if this is approved it will be set up so that it is simple to use. Corinne (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support --Yeza (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Oppose feels like NIH syndrome to me. There is no end of external calendar and todo-list applications one could use for such a purpose. I can see the point of involving the wiki software if there is a collaborative element (e.g. a notification schedule curated by multiple people that anyone can sign up to), but for a simple personal tool, the required engineering time could be put to better uses. --Tgr (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support This would make my workflow much smoother. I know that there are third party reminder tools but that's missing the point; the power is to be able to set reminders at the very moment I make an edit to a page. I view the {{replyto}} template as a similar kind of improvement: before that template was introduced in 2013, we could certainly go to someone's talk page and leave them a ping/talkback, but being able to do it right at the moment you make an edit to a page you want to draw someone's attention to was a dramatic workflow improvement. I view reminders in the same way. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Notifications/fr&oldid=26128230"