Open main menu
Editing
27 proposals, 430 contributors

Go-previous.svg Citations  •  Maps Go-next.svg

The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)

Contents


Make the 2010 editor lighter and faster or create a new lightweight editor

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The 2010 editor is much slower and much more memory-consuming than the just removed 2006 editor. Unfortunately, this seems to be now the only tool that offers an interface to various extensions like CodeMirror or ProofreadPage. This is especially visible when opening simultaneously about 50 pages for offline editing. But not only.
  • Who would benefit: advanced users who make a lot of on-wiki edits
  • Proposed solution: optionally disable or some rarely used features of the editor (eg. the "Help" or "Special characters") or make them loadable on demand (non-existent in the page structure until clicked on). Or make an alternative, simple, lightweight tool that allow to configure easily which elements are of interface are created and which are not by users who are not technically skilled. Note: this is about not creating unnecessary HTML code, not about removing them from existent interface as the latter is unlikely to save memory and fasten browser operation.
  • More comments: "Advanced" wiki users may have no programming skills or no HTML knowledge to create an optimized environment by themselves. They may have some skills that allow them to create/modify the wiki content efficiently if supported by efficient tools.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Ankry (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

As having worked on this editor in the past, can you describe why/how/where it feels 'slow' to you (or anyone else who wants to answer) ? Some of my personal hunches are

  • "because it's later than the rest of the page"
  • The animations on the toolbar sections. FYI, allowing for configuration is a sure way to ADD to the load time
  • Syntax Highlighting —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Put mw.toolbar back

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The mw.toolbar was removed
  • Who would benefit: All active authors
  • Proposed solution: Restore the toolbar
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: task T30856
  • Proposer: Itti (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • This is a duplicate of Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Keep the lightweight text editor. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This proposal is fine as it is, and it can stay. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      • What's the difference? Part of the point of the pre-voting phase is to improve proposals so that we don't have voting on many similar proposals, thus potentially diffusing the vote for a particular proposal. If there is a difference, is it significant to the degree that it should be a separate proposal? --Izno (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The difference is, that the other proposal was dealt with as an emergency, especially in the discussion dealt primarily about immediate band aid to fix the most urgent problems, while it was meant as a long term issue, that the tools should be kept, i.e. restored. And it differs from my proposal, as this is about the tools surrounding the lightweight editor (buttons, CharInsert...), while mine was about the lightweight editor itself (the plain white box you write in in text mode). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
But you can already get to the plain white box? Maybe the other proposal should be closed if that's what the other proposal is about. You turn off the preference called in English "Enable the editing toolbar (This is sometimes called the '2010 wikitext editor'.)". --Izno (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
As for CharInsert, that didn't go away. German WP had a bug in their Javascript which disabled it. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a proposal that will get a lot of support for no reason other than old toolbar’s removal happening exactly around the time of CWS 2019. Sad state of affairs, really, these events should’ve not coincided so that there would’ve been a fairer vote. stjn[ru] 09:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi stjn, you should look at it on a different way. This desire for a stable, simple working basis, which is offered to a user in all language versions for his work, is a deep and serious desire. It is a basis for good work. Many Greetings Itti (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the concern is that, split as it is into two proposals, and the timing, these two will easily make it into the top ten and take two of the coveted top ten slots, resulting in less work on development of new features. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I think that is not necessary, they can handle it like one. --Itti (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Bring back the charinsert in German Wikipedia! Chaddy (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atamari (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alraunenstern۞ 22:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Stefan »Στέφανος«  22:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wahrerwattwurm (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Summer ... hier! (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rmcharb (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The 2010 edit bar is not even remotely close to a proper replacement of the old toolbar. Its original buttons are 95% useless, and the system of different panels to access buttons is horrible (same design flaws as Vector, where you need to scroll menus to access functions - especially when you are a sysop). Rhadamante (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As substitute for the unduly ignored wish to keep the existing tools working. (And if I had the buttons I'm used to you would even get a proper signature. Its a shame that I have to write my text in de and than copy and paste here because nothing works. And don't dare you deleting because not proper signed. Check the Version History if you have any doubts who writes here.) --Fano (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ghilt (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Peterdexheimer (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gereon K. (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Typical autistic dev decision, made without proper consultation of the working base of the content project here.
  •   Support--Silewe (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Alinea (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support FF-11 (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Cbyd (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kpisimon (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Adelfrank (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bertramz (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Privat-User (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Squasher (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rote4132 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Doc Taxon (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Townie (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jmv (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bubo 18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Should never have been removed in the first place, but many companies want to move on to newer versions, like Google and Microsoft. WMF shouldn't be like those companies; rather they should re-create or reinsert the good ol' '06 toolbar. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nk (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hadibe (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Altkatholik62 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Wikimedia is not at all a profit-driven company which needs new features to increase their turnover. Think of an old proverb, and never touch a running system.
  •   Support Keith D (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I am an admin of Ukrainian Wikipedia. I liked the old toolbar and I spent hours of my volunteer time trying to reproduce mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor, without success. I am also active in many wikis (like Commons or Meta) where I am not an admin and there is no gadget available. I now have a choice between spending more time on trying to fix the problem I did not cause or spend more time on each edit. I hate this choice, so please put the toolbar back NickK (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tim Landscheidt (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ankry (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Rhadamante. Or create a new toolbar that is easily customizable! Jules78120 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --voyager (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Joschi71 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support JackPotte (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Benjamin (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Phi (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hildeoc (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Emptyfear (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Mend My Way 23:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for the same reasons I gave on the linked proposal. Iridescent (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support«« Man77 »» [de] 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mirkur (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zunter (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This was sunset. Deliberately. I'm shocked if people haven't figured out and/or are not used to the combinations necessary to hand-type the buttons in. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    Nur geht es nicht um Sonnenäufgänge oder bunte Bildchen. Benutzer benötigen die Symbole, wenn sie anspruchsvolle Artikel schreiben möchten. Das ist so ziemlich das Gegenteil von dem, was du schreibst. Ich bin schockiert, wie man so abfällig über die Bedürfnisse anderer urteilen kann. --Itti (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Itti: Nie jest ładnie pisać w swoim języku, jeżeli piszesz na stronie na której wszyscy posługują się językiem angielskim. PMG (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    @PMG: Es ist einfacher, in der Sprache zu schreiben, die man gut spricht und sich die Antwort in der Sprache des anderen übersetzt. Dann ist das Ergebnis besser, als wenn jeder versucht, in einer dritten Sprache mehr schlecht als recht zu schreiben. Das hat nichts mit Unhöflichkeit zu tun, sondern mit Effizienz. It is better to write in the language you are good and the other will translated this. The result is much more better, as if everybody is trying to write a third language in with both are not save. This is not a kind of unpolitness it is more efficient. Regards --Itti (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --DaizY (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Boehm (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Parpan05 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Engelbaet (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steindy (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IWI (chat) 10:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support like the comment of User:Itti -- Biberbaer (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- User: Perhelion 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Quedel (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Mautpreller (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support DaB. (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Magiers (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Orci (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Schlesinger (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support XenonX3 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Maimaid (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Neitram (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Freimut Bahlo (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Saluk (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zinnmann (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support JuTa (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -jkb- 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Benowar (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Asio otus (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Si! SWamP (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ra'ike (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jocian (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ----Alfred Kiefer (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Phzh (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ket (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --PowerBUL (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Den man tau (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lutheraner (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doc.Heintz (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jossi2 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fano (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Eloquenzministerium (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Anatoliy (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tusculum (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snookerado (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wiklol (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Make the math tag support non-Latin languages

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: There should be a public plugin on web for putting LaTaX into Chinese, so it is not difficult to implement the content in zh supporting wikis modified by the <math> tag (that is, the "mathematical formula" function).

(网络上应该有公开的使LaTaX中文化的插件,所以私以为使<math>标签所修饰内容(也就是“数学公式”功能”)支持中文应该是不难实现的).)

  • Who would benefit:
  • Proposed solution:
  • Phabricator tickets: T50032
  • Proposer: 脂肪酸钠 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This was posted in Chinese. I've translated it into English, but kept the original Chinese. --Omotecho (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@脂肪酸钠: Could you provide an example what "putting LaTeX into Chinese" means? Basically LaTeX is a file format, and Chinese are languages and scripts, so I am not sure I understand what is requested here and how these two are related. Thanks a lot! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to be "put the Chinese into the math", not "put the math into the Chinese"? Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle 标 = 签} <- doesn't work too well. --Izno (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno:You are right. Thanks. 脂肪酸钠 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  Comment allow me to indent a few lines below so that discussion is better threaded. 10:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC) -->
OK.脂肪酸钠 (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Example: <chem>2H2{+}O2->[点燃]2H2O</chem>
present output: Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \ce{2H2{+}O2->[点燃] 2H_2O}}
or,  
  Comment expected output: in zh as: 2H2+O2点燃—>2H2O
Over here, TeX does not support Chinese. 脂肪酸钠 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  Comment @脂肪酸钠: kindly check if my edit above is correct. I am trying to support you convey your idea in en as a translator.this proposal might benefit local languages, if LaTex shows in local language. Thank you to post your idea. Omotecho (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It's perfect.脂肪酸钠 (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
As a note, this isn't just Chinese--there are a number of languages with this problem. I've added the Phabricator task. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
For Chinese, it would be nice if Chinese styling commands can be supported. C933103 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@脂肪酸钠: Thank you for all your input. We are kind of working on this, but unfortunately it takes very long and it would be awesome if we could get some support from WMF (see phab:T195861 and Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Functional and beautiful math for everyone). If you just want to avoid the error, you can use <chem>2H2{} + O2 ->[\text{点燃}] 2H2O</chem>:

 

However in most browsers, the rendering of 点燃 is very bad which is due to our current math extension setup. This means for a proper solution of the issue, we do not only need to remove the texvcjs which is responsible for the error, but we also need a better rendering that is equivalent to the client-side html rendering other websites use.

Side remark: Please do not use the old workaround with curly brackets around the plus anymore. Apart from removing the normal spacing this can render completely different in some cases. We are planning to make it work according to the specifications without workarounds, i.e. <chem>2H2 + O2 ->[点燃] 2H2O</chem> [1] (you can test the normal behavior at the bottom with \ce{2H2 + O2 ->[点燃] 2H2O}) and for this currently replacing those kind of workarounds with the workaround I used above, because that is a workaround which renders the same without texvcjs (the culprit for falsely removing necessary spaces) and up-to-date mhchem (without bug in {} implementation).

Please also do not try to fix the bad text rendering with workarounds like <chem>2H2{} + O2 ->[\mbox{点}\;\,\mbox{燃}] 2H2O</chem>:

 

because that will probably look bad for other people and look even worse if one day those rendering problems are fixed.

I would be very happy if you want to support us in phab:T195861, (testing different rendering solutions/devices, give some feedback, replacement work, investigating strange errors, code-review, translation and information for editors...).--Debenben (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Debenben: Your first style of "点燃" makes the ~10% right part of "点" and ~10% left part of "燃" overlapped-rendered (which by using that on zhwiki locally, you will trigger an AbuseFilter and so you can't publish your edits). Please, use your second example instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Make LaTeX use UTF-8, properly, natively"... what a wonderful idea. Apart from anything else, sometimes one wishes to cite people whose names are not straight ASCII characters! But as I recall this has a long history... there are kludges, but LaTeX3 has been in the works for over a quarter-century.[2] I'm not sure why, but something must be difficult. HLHJ (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it works on math.stackexchange.com and 70000 other websites [3] so I would say it is feasible. We just have to use MathJax the right way and for this we might need some help to integrate it properly into the resource loader.--Debenben (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Simplified/semi-automated conversion for units of measurements

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently, converting units of measurement on Wikipedia between the Imperial and Metric system or otherwise requires the editor to go through a lengthy process of searching for and generating a convert template, cutting the measurement which they wish to convert, pasting the component parts of the measurement into the various sections of the convert template, adjusting the convert settings and applying all of that . This process then has to be repeated again and again if the editor wishes to convert multiple units, such as in a data table or specifications list.
  • Who would benefit: Novice editors who are not sure how to convert units, seasoned editors who wish to convert units more quickly, especially in situations such as large data tables, when creating a page, or when carrying out repeat/copy edits across a large number of pages. (EDIT: As other editors have pointed out the conversion tool is used outside of the Anglosphere, although not to the same extent as within it. For instance, users have cited certain Russian units as well as many historical/traditional units. An unsigned user also said that the convert template is used on around 80 wikis. In addition, I know that, for measurements such as horsepower, there are a variety of units, such as hp, kW, PS and CV that are used globally today.)
  • Proposed solution: I propose a tool somewhat similar to auto-correct, which, when a unit of measurement is detected, may highlight or otherwise ask the user in a non intrusive way if they wish to convert that unit, and subsequently provide a button or single click solution that creates a convert template for them with the magnitude of the measurement and unit already entered into the template in their respective categories. The interface could open up when you right click, prompting you to convert the units, and then offer you a straight, one click conversion to metric/imperial that automatically fills in the "unit to", "unit from" and "value" boxes and leaves the other settings as default.
  • More comments: Currently, what most editors, or at least myself, do is create an empty convert template and copy it so they can then paste it throughout an article and input units into it. This is inefficient, however, as you still have to input all the values which can be lengthy, and it also removes your ability to copy anything else.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: TKOIII 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • See also related phabricator task (phab:T190813 [converting en:Module:Convert to extension) and phab:T77978 - unit conversion in Wikidata). eranroz (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit odd that the United States is the last country defending the Imperial System. What would Benjamin Franklin think? Actually, technically, the US uses Customary Units, which are significantly different from the British-defined Imperial units. A US pint is ~95mL less than an Imperial pint, for instance. The UK still uses Imperial for a few purposes, such as beer and roadsigns. The former British Empire largely uses metric. The only country still officially using the Imperial standard is Belize.
The convert template is not just about Imperial/metric. It can handle weird historical units from old sources, for instance. According to the Phab ticket it is used on ~80 wikis. We need better unit conversion, especially on Wikidata (I recently had a Wikidata query return unitless temperatures).
For ambiguous measurements, like "pint", I'd support prompting, but if the editor's input is in metric, I'd oppose the prompt. I'd rather have a bot do it and save the editor's time. I don't like having computer programs nag me to do something they could do better. :) HLHJ (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support James Martindale (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tom Ja (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Sorry, but this is just the problem of Anglosphere. I believe the limited resources of the Community Tech team should be spared for proposals which have a greater, if not global, impact. There are many local problems with MediaWiki or WMF projects such as the limited support for Iranian calendar. Do I want to see a broader support for the Iranian calendar here? Yes. Do I want to assign this laborious task to the Community Tech team? No, because that would be selfish. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support it's a genuine global problem and solution seems lightweight, good to have it on board. Cohaf (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support @4nn1l2: Please note that at least Russian use Cyrillic-based unit symbols (e.g. кг) instead of Latin-based (e.g. kg), so this should also be useful for Russian users. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: Do Russians use Imperial units? 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: Sometimes yes, and they even translate them, e.g. they translate inch as "дюйм". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hiàn (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 16:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Redactyll (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Viswaprabha (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Waste of scarce resources as mentioned by 4nn1l2. Waddie96 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it would be nice to have basic unit conversion between many units provided by default as a Lua module to any and all wiki. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As this proposal's creator, I wholeheartedly support this ;) TKOIII (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poslovitch (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dreamy Jazz (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Filipović Zoran (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support General Rommel (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Minoo (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ogat (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dumbassman (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Easy talk page posts by email

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: A huge number of people send emails to Wikimedia projects requesting edits to Wikipedia articles, Wikimedia Commons files, and elsewhere. The experienced Wikimedia community base knows this process as OTRS. People sending emails are typically very lost and confused, but in almost all cases, what they really want and need is for their comment by email to go onto the talk page of a Wikipedia article or Commons file page. Instead, all these texts and requests get lost into the private OTRS system where only a few OTRS agents review them. OTRS is currently a catch all for emails to any Wikimedia project, but actually, what it should be is a system for inviting people to on-wiki systems to make public requests about wiki editing. Separate from public requests and outside the scope of this problem, OTRS also gets private questions on sensitive issues, and those issues should stay in OTRS and not be changed by this proposal.
While a billion plus people know Wikipedia somehow they have no awareness that wiki talk pages exist or that they can post messages there. Instead work queues back up in OTRS with requests that the client wants to be publicly discussed.
  • Who would benefit: People making what they intend to be public edit requests by email would benefit by getting their request successfully delivered to the Wiki community of reviewers and editors. The Wiki community would benefit by massively increasing the number of people actively contributing to Wikimedia projects. If we could make it easier for new users to post to talk pages we would get a huge number of new account registrations, an actual constructive edit from new accounts (most new accounts have no edits ever), actual new user positive on-wiki engagement, thoughtful suggestions with wiki editors, and relief for wiki administrators whose time should not be spent explaining talk pages.
 
Sample form which should output a post to a Wikimedia talk page
  • Proposed solution: We need a pathway in OTRS for the email response team to return an automated form to people who send emails. The form needs to setup their email for posting to a Wikipedia talk page and ask the person writing if they agree to post it publicly by Wikipedia's terms of use. There should be a form with three fields - Wikipedia article name (or file for Commons, or equivalent for any other Wikimedia project), subject line, and message. To complete the form a user has to either log in or create an account. The user posts a message in the form and the tool output is posting the form text to the bottom of the talk page. The tool automatically signs the user's wiki name to the post and tags it with a "help me" template. This on-wiki review replaces the private OTRS review in the majority of email requests which want public discussion with Wikipedia editors and reviewers.
  • More comments: If we had a way to convert the labor of the people making these thoughtful requests by email into requests on Wiki talk pages, we could realistically increase the number of Wikimedia users making substantial and thoughtful edits to Wikimedia projects by 10% with very little outreach or technical development.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Sample form - the tool would look like this, and have the output of posting text live to a Wikimedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Cool idea. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, very cool!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Great idea! This will also reduce the traffic to OTRS and volunteers will have more time to deal with other tickets. KCVelaga (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Great idea, minor quibble. Sending HTML e-mails is insecure and high-bandwidth, and some servers filter them out. I suggest sending a link to a secured web page, ideally instead of an HTML email, but if there's some good reason as well as one. HLHJ (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea, which keeps the general idea ofa free-form submission, but makes it a little easier. It's a better way to go than to try to get i nfixed check the boxes system. DGG (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • pinging participants in wm2018:OTRS agents - I am requesting your vote of support for this OTRS proposal in the annual Wikimedia Community Wishlist survey. Please also consider Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Editing#Route_users_through_knowledgebase_before_contacting_OTRS.
@Dyolf77, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Sannita, Sargoth, and DerHexer:
@Doc James, Martin Kraft, Rehman, Masti, and -revi:
@Bachounda, Masssly, 0x010C, علاء, and May Hachem93:
@Armineaghayan, Mardetanha, NahidSultan, and Ijon:
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to have a tool that makes [4] easier to use. User:Harej has already started to build something similar here. It just needs a bit more work. Would make a nice tool for the subjects of articles to provide feedback to the talk page. User:Bluerasberry wondering your thoughts on adding boxes for the following?
    • Information requested to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
    • Explanation of issue: ADD TEXT HERE
    • References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST
  • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James and Harej: I would certainly be willing to collaborate with Harej. If any designer recommends adding more steps then I support it. In general, more steps means less participation. More steps increases the value of the content, but people already write detailed emails for edit requests that get lost to OTRS, and my first priority is recovering the labor and thought of those emails. We rarely get Wikipedia talk page posts that are long but long email requests are routine. To start the conversation I would like to turn the 1 step of sending an email into 2 steps, email and simple form which is a unorganized box for text. Additional features make the user do steps 3, 4, and so on. Someone else can decide how hard to push for more steps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Simplest case A simpler case than my proposal could be a plain text box for input and assistance registering an account. If we have an account and the text of a comment, then even without sorting the issue or an article title, we could dump all these responses into a noticeboard or public queue. From there, OTRS agents (or anyone else, it is public at this point) could move the requests and comments to the appropriate talk page. If we did this we would greatly increase Wikimedia contributions and reform the OTRS system to focus on private requests, and leave public requests to public channels. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • We could combine these two solutions by having a "I don't know" default for the "Which Wikipedia article?" question. HLHJ (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@DannyH (WMF): As you said a lot of talk pages related wishlists are out of scope, Why not this one? --117.14.243.161 03:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, we saw this proposal as being more about improving the OTRS system. The talk page-related proposals that we archived were about changing the way that talk pages work, in one way or another. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Flag edits by new editors (editor retention tool)

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Wikipedia is steadily losing editors. If a new editor has all their edits reverted, they are much less likely to become a long-term editor (survival drops from three-in-five to one-in-five). Even one revert discourages newbies. Revising or tagging new editors' edits does not have the same discouraging effect. It can even be taken as praise[5]; personalized constructive criticism is especially helpful.[6]

    In other words, every time I help two to three new editors make their first retainable, productive edits, I win Wikipedia a long-term editor and multiply my contribution; and to do this I need to treat the new editor with additional care. Problem is, I don't know who they are, and the user interface makes it difficult for me to not auto-bite newbies.

Experienced editors can deal with a bold revert and a line of jargon, and it's efficient, but it scares new editors off. I want to know when I am interacting with a new editor, so it's easier for me, as an editor, to behave in ways that promote editor retention. For instance:
  1. leaving edit summaries which are educational and comprehensible to a newbie (e.g. link all jargon), so the newbie can learn community norms
  2. tagging edits with Inline cleanup tags, so the newbie can learn what is wrong with their edits
  3. fixing edits (rephrasing copyvio or bias, sourcing, etc.), so the newbie can learn how to make good edits
  • Who would benefit: Increasing retention is critical to the long-term survival of our community.
  • Proposed solution: An icon-style flag on edits, saying this edit was made by a new editor, would be nice. It would also let me rescue edits others have reverted. A list of edits by new editors can already be generated by using filters in Recent changes, but I'd like to see the information in the article history, so I see it in my regular editing practice (that is, without going to a dedicated page, like Recent changes, or using specialized tools such as Snuggle or STiki). Others may prefer a similar flag in watchlists.
While I hope it would prompt help, such a newbie flag might also stigmatize new editors, and thus hurt their integration into the community. This should be tested. One alternative might be to flag only reverted edits by good-faith new editors, and have an edit notice prompting anyone reverting a new editor (especially using a tool) to be aware that this is a new editor, so they can react appropriately.
As I need to mention in the edit summary if I am fixing an edit of a declared-COI editor, a (different, obviously) COI flag for COI edits would also be useful. Flagging edits by vandals reverted with "rvv" with yet another flag might also be an easy extension.
Since helpful advice when reverting good-faith newbies almost always includes a referral to the Teahouse, it might be nice to have that added to the revert notice automatically for the first 2 months/100 edits (or empirically-determined thresholds).
I'm very much open to suggestions here, as I am aware that many others have more knowledge and experience than I in this area.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: HLHJ (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Re-scope
Discussion of rescoped proposal

The proposal has been changed as above; comments on the new proposal are welcome here. MMiller (WMF), do you have views on how the modified proposal might interact with the Growth Team's work? As DannyH said, the proposal had morphed into a bit of a "have a Growth Team" proposal, but it's smaller now. HLHJ (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Stussll (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gnangarra (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Barcelona (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Old serious editors now dislike Wiki because any newcomers can wreck well done pages, which requested hours of effort. Once the time all stubs were welcome, now this phase is ended: all main subjects are covered, quality of articles is now needed. Too much indulgence with newcomers has the only effect that old serious editors will leave Wiki. A ntv (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This is an interesting hypothesis, A ntv, that wiki maturity caused the abrupt transition from exponential growth in editor numbers to a slow decline. However, the same transition occurred at the the same time on many, but not all, other wikis, which mostly have far fewer articles than the English Wikipedia.[11] It seems that old editors are leaving at the same rate as they did before the transition, but we are getting fewer new editors, leading to a steady net loss of editors.[12] Possible causes are discussed on Research:The Rise and Decline. HLHJ (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • IMHO the abrupt transition occurs, in any Wikis, when the easy-to-find-sources (i.e. mainly online other encyclopedia or similar) have been fully used to create new articles (fun and rewarding job). After that the number of contributions depends from two items: a) the easiness to find sources (google book / libraries), and b) the need to defend the articles from troll/newcomers. In the future, to improve an article or create an interesting new article of true encyclopedic interest, it will be more and more difficult to find sources (libraries or scientific papers) and off-line work it will take more and more time. Editors who use now most of the time in selecting sources, are less and less interested in taking care of the newcomers who write trivial articles on not-encyclopedic people or make edits without even having read all the article they modify. Please protect the old editors.A ntv (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Research:The Rise and Decline and its associated paper discuss this theory, citing it as having been proposed by Suh et al. in 2009. There is limited evidence to support it; in a sample of human-rated newbie edits, good-faith newbies dropped moderately from 92.2% to 79.8% of all new editors during 2005 (total editor numbers were rising sharply and Wikipedia was much in the news, so this probably represents more vandals), and newbie edits to longer articles are more likely to be rejected, for instance.
          The transition occurred at the same time on de-wiki, tho, and they not only have fewer articles, they have much less well-developed articles (and a lower requirement for sourcing). A substantial proportion of the editors can read English at a near-native level, too. If writing useful new work had become more difficult because de-wiki editors had exhausted the easy sources and easy article topics, one would expect that the monoglot German-speakers might be less productive, while the people with good English would still be just as productive (as comparison with en-wiki clearly shows that there are plenty more usable English-language sources, and article topics). I have not seen any evidence of this.
          You are, however, now very likely to get an edit on either wiki rejected if it isn't initially perfect. If it has grammatical errors, formatting errors, or is unclear to the reviewer, it will probably get reverted, and it probably won't get fixed by someone else. The learning curve for new editors has become precipitously steep, and anyone who does not scale this learning cliff does not become a regular editor. The effects of learning-curve steepness on retention are known from video games. Most people won't climb cliffs. To keep going, they need a hike, not too steep, not too flat, continually challenging. As you say, the old editors need care; if we lose old editors faster than we train new ones, our community will dwindle and die. But we will lose old editors, if only to death, and we must train new editors fast enough to replace them. Currently we don't; editor number are falling, and areas of the wiki are falling silent. It's starting to feel like a ghost town. HLHJ (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that the best prophylactic against wrecking answer is the edit-approval (Sichten) system used on German Wikipedia PJTraill (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The edit approval system of the German wikipedia marks edits by newbies (less than 30 edits). It is positive feedback to get an edit approved. Minoo (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it's 50 confirmed edits or 150 edits, and 30 days of registration (policy). I don't know what proportion of edits by good-faith new editors are rejected under this system, and I'm not sure if anyone has tested what effect this has on recruitment and retention. HLHJ (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Timeshifter (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose reminds me of the StackExchange New Contributor Indicator --Frozen Hippopotamus (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a useful experience, Frozen Hippopotamus. Thank you for the link. Do you know how it worked out long-term? Are there stats? The page you linked to has some comments which seem pertinent; one I liked was "Build the new user experience so that it explains how to use the site instead of relying on users to "be nice" by explaining it to them"; taking this view, this tool suggestion (which I frankly think is better than mine here) might be preferred to the help desk focus, though in practice they are probably complementary. The StackExchange comments also ~contain the ones I made here: testing the effects and making the new-user notice invisible unless the interaction is going to be negative. HLHJ (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I've since quit SO/SE, not because of this feature but because of the general low quality of the user contributions, especially the questions on SO (different story). Having been a simple user of these sites, I have no insight into how the feature was received once implemented. SE (the company) is not very keen to share raw data or stats about the success of such features. It may be difficult to measure, especially if there is no A/B test (half with, half without a feature) done. --Frozen Hippopotamus (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • That's unfortunate, to say the least, but thank you for the info. I would strongly oppose making any changes that might significantly affect the editor community without good A/B testing. HLHJ (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It sounds as though you dislike the SE New Contributor Indicator, but I think it a quite reasonable (in spite of the flak in the answers on the linked page), though more important there than here. PJTraill (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zeromonk (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Benjamin (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support BugWarp (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I often look how many edits a contributor has when reviewing changes, but this would help too. PJTraill (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support WeegaweeK ❀  t  c  08:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It will be of benefit for newbies. I know that some experienced Wikipedians dislike newbies' inexperience, but it's not the reason why we choose to discourage them. It is a way to balance newbies and the experienced, although it may not be the best. Mariogoods (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dvorapa (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me of the way rookie drivers on motorsports circuits have special identifiers on their cars (and how rookie firefighters also have markings on their helmets) Though I think new contributors should be informed of this and allowed to opt out ... some may not wish to be so singled out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tgr (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tool for easy user buttons

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Users can make their own buttons for better editing, which insert to edit area some templates, parts of code or patterns.

    This can be done by editing user javascript page. But majority of users is not skilled enough to make these buttons, only some of them copy it from other users, but when some problem occurs, they are not able to repair it.

  • Who would benefit: Editors using wikitext editor.
  • Proposed solution: Make some extension, where every user can easily make his own buttons.

    Tool can be based on User:Krinkle/Scripts/InsertWikiEditorButton.js. There will be table in the special:preferences

active name text before cusrsor text after cursor picture tooltip
X coord {{Coord|lat |lon|}}   Coordinates
X hello Hello world   insert hello world
O speedy {{Delete}}   nominates for deletion
Values from table will be copied to script (with escaping problematic characters) by tool and user can easily make another buttons without care about script changes or about malicious script.
  • More comments: This extension will create user javascript on active wiki or can create global script on meta.
  • Phabricator tickets: T136152

Discussion

Arkanosis, Trizek, doesn't frwiki have something similar to this? I seem to recall that being touted as an advantage there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF): no, the only things we have are:
  • a large collection of gadgets, each providing buttons around a common theme (references, patrolling…);
  • a framework which is not mediawiki.toolbar but which provides the exact same features except it doesn't break everytime a non-backward compatible change is made in core, and that people can use in their own user scripts to add custom buttons.
Maintenance of the local code has been a nightmare for years for the few of us who work on it — a double nightmare actually, as we have to support both mediawiki.toolbar, the local framework and the mix thereof. Hopefully, with mediawiki.toolbar being retired, we'll be able to make both APIs use the same backend.
I think JAn's idea is quite good, given maintenance is a nightmare because of user scripts, not because of core or gadgets. If people had a way to setup their buttons without having to write code that breaks every few months, not only would they be happier, but maintainers like us would be too.
Best regards — Arkanosis 12:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that maintenance need. Thank you for that proposal, JAn Dudík. I'm really looking forward an easy way to add buttons, no matter what's the editor. Trizek from FR 11:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Make default edit summaries available for all wikis

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The purpose of edit summaries is to understand an edit at a glance, and oftentimes the summary is simple: "reply", "expansion", "basics", or a copy of a bolded !vote ("delete"/"merge"/"keep"). Sometimes editors forget or can't be bothered with writing an edit summary, even though there is a dropdown option with a list of suggestions, and the edit history becomes poorer. And it takes a few seconds even for editors who do leave edit summaries. That's many seconds across many edits. Additionally, edit summaries tend to be filled with acronyms/jargon that are hard for passersby to decipher (these could be expanded/linked to give context).
  • Who would benefit: All editors, anyone reading article history
  • Proposed solution: As an editor, I want the text editor feature to suggest suggestions for edit summary as a native feature. I want the edit summaries to be approachable for neophytes whenever possible, with acronyms expanded and linked for context.
  • More comments: As a place to start, take the dropdown of suggested edit summary options and have the editor (standard or VE) suggest summaries when applicable. There's also room to do things like automatically convert shorthand like WP:5P to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] so as to be more approachable to new editors.
  • Phabricator tickets: T54859 (VE)
  • Proposer: czar 11:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • "The dropdown of suggested edit summaries" is entirely a browser-side item. Of course, there is an entire corpus of edit summaries with attendant changes... You'll have to lean on one of the AIs dealing with vandalism. --Izno (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Czar Hello. Izno is correct. The dropdown on suggested edit summary options you mention is actually a list of edit summaries you have entered in the past that your browser remembers. If you change your browser, you won't see them again. I like the wish but it's a tad bit challenging because we will need to make it work across all languages/wikis. On english it is probably not very hard to do something like this with a gadget maybe but making it work for all wikis is going to be very complex. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: the dropdown suggestions, I was referring to the checkbox in Gadgets preferences labeled, "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries". My impression is that these are standard, not based on edit summaries I've entered in the past. Either way, the point is less about using those summaries as sample cases than the larger AI element. czar 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. It is a gadget. I think a good place to start would be to first make some default summaries available for all users in all editors. Right now you only see it if you have enabled the gadget. What you suggest about predicting the edit summaries based on article text - that's technically challenging until we get a hold of some artificial intelligence systems sadly. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Czar Hello. We discussed this in our team meeting today and there was consensus that we cannot do anything predictive because making it work across different languages will be very challenging and a huge project for Community Tech team. What we can do instead is to allow wikis to add a list of standard edit summaries which are presented to all users on the wiki when they are adding the edit summary (can be an optional dropdown or suggestions as they type etc). If you think that changing the scope for this wish is fine, please reply back to me and I will rename the proposal (or you can do that if you prefer). If we cannot change scope, we will need to turn this wish down because it is too big for our team. I'm sorry about the inconvenience. Thanks in advance. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @NKohli (WMF) and appreciate your looking into this. Would your described dropdown differ from the dropdown currently available in the enwp Gadget menu ("Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries")? If not, the existing gadget would suffice. I think the opportunity here to use patterns to automatically generate edit summaries to create smarter edit histories and/or save editor time. If the scope is too big for the Community Tech team, would there be a better place to suggest such a feature for another team (WMF or independent) with different resources? czar 00:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: The main difference would be that the solution we devise would bring this functionality to all wikis and not be restricted to English Wikipedia. In addition to that we can look into making the default summaries more configurable by the community (not hardcoded into the gadget like it is). We can also provide UI improvements (such as auto-complete suggestions when user starts typing something that matches up with a stored summary). The reason it is so hard to do predictive summaries is because we don't currently have any machine learning in place which can do any pattern detection with edits diffs. I don't know of a good place for you to suggest this right now but I will be sure to bring this to the attention of other teams in the Foundation. I know there are a couple of other projects that are working on Machine Learning features. Hopefully they will consider adding this too. Czar, can I go ahead and rename and tweak this proposal? Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF), yes, please! Thank you. czar 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Czar. If you disagree with any of the changes I make, please do let me know and I will fix them. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI, on enwiki I've read complaints about mobile's canned edit summaries that imply that vandals or clueless newbies tend to just hit one at random. If the feature is not opt-in, I wouldn't be too surprised if enwiki configures an empty list of canned summaries. Anomie (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There are wikis which have summary buttons. And I many cases I had problem, my edits dint't fit tinto these summaries. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Add key mapping for Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa to ULS

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Recently I publicized a project within my local community that involve volunteers translating some particular words from English to some local Nigerian languages. I was surprised when everyone of the participant didn't know how to apply diacritics to their translations using their keyboard, even though they understand how it is used. I've been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I still didn't have an appropriate solution for them on the spot. I understand that there might be some persons within those WP language communities that can do this well, but its either awareness level on it is still low, or its still not as easy or convenient as it should be. Some months ago, i contacted a major editor in one of the local languages on behalf of a new editor in my community on how the new editor can use those special characters, and the response I got was that I used use Google, and she provided me with a link on Google. This was not easy for me to understand, not to talk of explaining to another person. If we must consolidate contents in local languages, this is a concurrent issue. I think Hausa is the only local Nigerian language that doesn't need special characters. My email is full of translations for Yoruba and Igbo, but I can't use them or train volunteers on how to use them without an easy way of applying the diacritics.
  • Who would benefit: Any language Wikipedia that doesn't have a specialized keyboard for its words.
  • Proposed solution: Add support for Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa to the IME keyboard. It'll have a huge impact in editing those local language WP.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the reply AKlapper and MusikAnimal (WMF), I'll be glad if my proposal is reworded to provide availability to include those languages.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@HandsomeBoy: Great! I would suggest "Add key mapping for Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa to ULS". Does that sound okay? If so I'll be happy to move the proposal for you to the new name. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi HandsomeBoy, I have taken the liberty of renaming and rewording your proposal. Feel free to reword it more if anything looks off. Thanks for participating in the survey! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is clearly an important thing to do. Yoruba has over 80 million native speakers, Igbo has 50 million, and Hausa (which sometimes uses tone marks) has 40-odd million native speakers and about half again as many using it as a second language, as it is a lingua franca. Obviously we also need an easier way for new users to find the key mappings they need and ask for them on Phab if they don't (have slightly changed the word selection of the proposal). HLHJ (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a good request, but I had already done this for Yoruba (and I can improve it if needed), and it can be done for Hausa and Igbo, too. It's a thing that will take less than a day once the layout is defined well, so it doesn't really need to be in the wishlist. The wishlist is for projects that take several weeks. So just contact me and we'll figure it out quickly. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:HandsomeBoy,

This wish is now fulfilled :)

See:

If you have any comments, please ping me :)

Thanks for asking this! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Wikitext substitutions should work in ref and gallery blocks

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Links ending in |]], substitutions with {{subst: and tilde-timestamps (~~~~~) don't behave as expected within <ref> and <gallery> blocks. (Amongst others.)
  • Who would benefit: Article wikitext editors.
  • Proposed solution: Resolve that substitution and pipe tricks work inside other mediawiki tag extensions
  • More comments: More generally speaking: common wikitext substitutions that editors would expect to work in all reader-visible places, do not work in some contexts.

    mw:Extension:Cite has not evolved with other components of wikiediting. Substitution (subst:) and pipe tricks from inside custom tags like <ref> fail unless one pushes with more complicated use of {{#tag:}}. Such use can be problematic due to the misinterpretation of | and {{!}}. To note that the identified problem also applies to use of <poem>.

  • Phabricator tickets: T4700: Pre-save transform skips extensions using wikitext (gallery, references, footnotes, Cite, status indicators, pipe trick, subst, signatures)
  • Proposer: bdijkstra (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Gallery, tables, templates, pictures, etc should be fully functional for formatted texts. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Any chance? JAn Dudík (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Viswaprabha (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gallery, tables, templates, pictures, etc should be fully functional for formatted texts. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wargo (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Helder 13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dvorapa (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support XanonymusX (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tool for easy science editing using linked dictionary

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: There is no tool to facilitate science editing, which makes it difficult for the editors to work in the field. Also, the terms used are different in different languages and there's no link between them. It will be great if we have a tool, where if they add their language code and english name for the subject, it automatically gives the name in the desired language.
  • Who would benefit: It will be a lot more convenient for the editors to work and the content so generated will be veritable.
  • Proposed solution: if we can link the dictionary with editing by creating a tool with which by adding a command, the editor will be able to add the local language term for anything using the english word (the command will pick the desired language translation from wiktionary or dictionary). This will dismiss the necessity to know the specific terminology in their native language. Also, it will keep standard terms for the same word in different languages and will also link them all.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think this tool should maybe wait a year or two more because we are still integrating the structured dictionary into Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Manavpreet Kaur: What is "science editing"? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    I interpreted "science editing" to mean "editing in topics related to science". --Izno (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Izno correct. By science editing I meant editing in topics related to science. I appreciate your input, but we can also work on a pilot project for one language where we can link wiktionary and wikipedia, and later we can also work on wikidata integration.- Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of languages that simply don't have a term for a lot of scientific concepts. We might need to make terms up. HLHJ (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I think this would be a wonderful project to undertake on Wikiversity, Manavpreet Kaur. I believe engineers in Iceland did something similar about a century ago. Since creative scientific lexicography involves creating knowledge, though, this would have to be done on Wikiversity, not Wiktionary. HLHJ (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting... but hard enough for native speakers to explain some things in ONE language, let alone NON-native speakers in TWO, especially with precise topics like science. Wikicat (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe the German government has such scientific word lists for German, as they require some grant proposals to be written in German, and German scientists have to look up the German scientific words as most scientific communication is in English. We could probably get these data donated to Wiktionary and/or Wikidata. Icelandic also has a formal list, I think, but not sure if there's a science-specific one. Generally, soliciting donations of such lists seems like a good idea. HLHJ (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for showing interest in the proposal. Actually the need was realized when we were creating medical articles. A lot of editors were reporting issues that finding appropriate medical terms in their native language was difficult and time consuming. Also, the different terms used in different languages for one subject matter also leads to confusion. So, in order to facilitate the editors to create content and also to standardise the terminology being used, it will be better if we have some linked system of providing translated names (for desired language) for the standard medical terms (in English)in a single command. We can run the pilot on one language and can later make it available for other languages. -Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Avoid links to disambiguation pages

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: On nl-wiki, a link to a disambiguation page is in general seen as an unwanted link, that should be resolved to one of the option on that disamb-page.
  • Who would benefit: The reader (gets better links) and the maintainer of these wrong links.
  • Proposed solution: Give a warning before saving the page, that disamb-links are available. If a user persists and saves anyways, we at least tried.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T97063, T198936
  • Proposer: Edoderoo (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • An example of the kind of page/link this should discourage would help voters to better understand this proposal. AEzell (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are rare cases where links to disambiguation pages are actually correct. We should probably only warn them when the new content being added contains a disambiguation link (rather than when any of the saved content contains a disambiguation link). Kaldari (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, sure. Hatnotes often link to disambig pages though, so those would need to be excluded (can presumably be done fairly easily).
  • There was a similar proposal on the English Wikipedia in 2016 (see en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 133#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages), which didn't pass. There was some useful discussion there. Uanfala (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, useful? Frustrating. When I press save, I want to save. Basta. When you close your eyes, you never see any problem ;-) But it still needs to be solved. On the Dutch wikipedia only, we get about 100 new disambiguation links added every day, and it's a sjid-load of work to get them link to the right page(s). And often it's the same user over and over again making that mistake. Maybe one change to my idea: implement this initially for users that are logged in with their account/password, and skip this question for ip-users. Users with an account are assumed to be more wiki-wise then ip-people. Edoderoo (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Every mandatory requirement/warning/error message becomes one more step that prevents people from making a change. That's probably bad in a lot or even most cases. This one won't be getting my support. --Izno (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What if we had a function to have any link that goes to a page with a disambig tag of any sort be colored bright green, or something like that. For links that are intended to go to disambig pages, maybe a special piped command or something to not make them stand out as needing correction. KConWiki (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I already have this in my css. We only should make this default to all users that login with an account. Edoderoo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
      • After I enabled orange disambig links, I got much better at not including them in articles. Support making orange disambig links the default. HLHJ (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes - most good-faith editors would welcome an alert telling them how to improve their page by linking to the article they want instead of to a dab page! I use the "colour them orange" gadget and find it really helpful. PamD (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per PamD. Edoderoo (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ALWAYS 3rd-color in Preview, unless special link-prefix says ignore. Wikicat (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tim Landscheidt (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Izno. However, I agree that this is a problem, so if the warning was opt-in, I would support it. Another good idea mentioned above is to add a preference to give dab page links a different colour. — Bilorv (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Bilorv that this is something that could be added to preferences as an opt-in (for example, I have my preferences set to alert me that I am trying to save without providing an edit summary) but can deter new editors. AHeneen (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ainali (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Whats new?(talk) 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Waddie96 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support«« Man77 »» [de] 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lord van Tasm (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 15:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Très utile. Edoli (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree with "save means save" philosophy. All sane software prompts the user who tries to perform a risky operation. No such user (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Pf1127 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 10:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Alexei Kopylov (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Helder 12:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But, as Kaldari says, only when the link has just been added. Unlike Izno, I do not see this putting me off editing for a moment. PJTraill (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support YFdyh000 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support APh (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wiklol (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Schniggendiller (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia more accessible to the visually impaired

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: So far, editing/using Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation projects require full usage of our visual, because of keyboard-input method. We need to find a way to expand Wikimedia Foundation project interface to be able to accommodate the visually impaired people so that they also can get the benefit of this free knowledge for mankind of Wikipedia. (I rewrite this statement from the previously written at Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Programs and events section)
  • Who would benefit: People having difficulties in their visual in using Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: Make Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia Foundation projects) to be visually impaired-friendly. First, for searching the articles in Wikipedia, we need to create a sound-sensitive input method so that they can easily search any article by speaking (e.g. into microphone input) and automatically convert it into wording and automatically search the related article names from it. Second, for each article, there must be a button that can be clicked (or sound activated mode) in which it will then read out all of the wordings inside one particular article to the user.
  • More comments: So far the closest works for this kind of project is Wiki in Audio (including Wikimedia:Spoken articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, Meta:Wikisound). But what I have understood so far, those sound must be fully recorded, thus disabling the spoken voice to speak out when the article gets expanded. So, it is better to make each of the word to be spoken one by one, instead of recording a voice for the whole article continuously. Maybe a more similar approach would be like the voice button at Google Translate, in which it will speak out each word one by one.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Chongkian (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The reason I don't think this is possible is that speech-to-text and text-to-speech software is subject to patents held by various companies. The software that runs Wikipedia is required to be open licensed just like the content. Patents last about 20 years, so speech-to-text and text-to-speech technology that is not restricted by patents is from 1998 and so not very good. Also, just to let you know, w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is a guideline in the Manual of Style that covers accessibility. AHeneen (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @AHeneen: I partially disagree. Free text-to-speech software and technology has existed for ages (Orca comes to my mind as an example). I don't know about speech-to-text though. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • AKlapper (WMF), Gnangarra: For copyleft and other open-source voice-to-speech software, see Speech recognition software for Linux. If you can speak or understand speech, Voxforge is copyleft and could use your contributions. The voice-assistant en:Mycroft (software) was a copyleft version of Cortana/Alexa etc., but then they relicensed it, and I don't know of a copyleft equivalent. HLHJ (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @HLHJ: there's a need for it to be incorporated somehow into the mobile Wikipedia app, with step like pending changes for the obvious spelling/grammar reasons. Gnangarra (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For the second part of this proposal (text-to-speech), see mw:Wikispeech. Also see phab:T194014 about making Wikispeech available in Wikimedia projects. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really needed; blind people like me use screen readers, and helping those who don't is way way beyond the scope of what almost 99.99999% of websites do. Graham87 (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Comp1089: may be interested. --Tohaomg (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I also use a screen reader, so the text-to-speech thing is not an issue in most cases. However, text-to-speech (input and/or reading) is not supported in a great number of languages, which is a real problem. For instance, due to the unavailability of a voice able to read Bashkir (or Kazakh) Cyrillic script, I always have to write the text in Latin transliteration (and then convert it to Cyrillic, if it is a Wikipedia article). Advocacy for creating/developing screen reading voices for as many languages as possible will probably be a task of the Para-Wikimedians Community User Group.
    As far as speech-to-text is concerned, enabling all people to search through the content using their voice seems a rather good idea. This may also come in handy when a blind/visually impaired user is for some reason unable to use a keyboard. (On a side note, there also are sighted people who cannot do that either, e.g. due to movement impairment). However, introducing such a technology to all Wikimedia wikis will definitely require a lot of time and other resources. --Comp1089 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Voice search does already exist in the Android and iOS Wikipedia apps via standard integration with their operating systems. However, very good points above about limited language support, and those apps only help on the Wikipedias. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • observation isnt the fact that all speech to text and text to speech are propriety software as reason to develop a open source version so that everyone can share in the sum of all knowledge, I assume the visually impaired fall into the subset of everyone, also as tool it could help with contributions from smart and mobile devices. Gnangarra (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Graham87: Sorry for abusing this thread for a more specific question. I would be interested if you can understand Wikipedia pages with mathematical content. I guess mathematical articles that make heavy use of template-hacks are the worst, I would guess most of them are not really accessible at all. However also for math formulas using the normal <math> tags, speakText generation is disabled (phab:T120938), so the screen-reader would have to pick up the hidden MathML and generate text itself. Does this work well? Is this sufficient to understand more complex formulas, or do you need the interactive "accessibility explorer" that gets shipped with normal MathJax and pages like math.stackexchange.com use? At least for someone like me who is not used to screen-readers, this accessibility explorer where you can navigate with arrow keys is the only way how I might understand a more complex formula.--Debenben (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I may respond here either. I do experience difficulties reading the more complex formulæ. The solution you suggested seems to work best with NVDA. @Graham87:, which screen reader do you normally use? --Comp1089 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I use JAWS with its inbuilt math viewer, which works well for simple formulae (and is slow but eventually works for more complex ones) ... it's usually good enough for me. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @Chongkian: As was mentioned in the discussion, building a voice-to-text (and a text-to-voice) system is quite out of scope for the Community Tech team, and there are already several tools that already exist that are providing very good solutions. The problem statement itself -- improving the accessibility functions of Wikipedia for the visually impaired -- is extremely important, and we will be happy to tackle that; if the wish is voted into the top 10, we will be doing an accessibility audit on Wikipedia's main functionalities and tackle the necessary fixes, while scoping the size of the work to be realistic for the team to achieve as part of the survey. Thank you for participating in the survey! MSchottlender-WMF (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Is there any way to make those graphs for which we have the raw data accessible to the blind? Graph Template Collection] graphs, for instance. Separately, how about having colour filters for the colourblind, who often can't read graphs and diagrams (mentioned here)? Or at least a way to auto-tag problematic images... HLHJ (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe we all should do this one by one, and step by step. Of course we can't have everything that is accessible to normal people to become accessible to the visually impaired. We can always start first with the text to audio reading thing, including all of the article searching, and probably searching of categories or even switching between different languages (of course we shall start from the major world's languages first). And then we shall see how we can "visualize" (in a broader sense) on all of those visuals (picture, graphs, videos) to the visually-impaired people. Those with full or partial color blind, probably we should have some equivalent (either upload it double-ly/redundantly (how to put this into words? - like the ability to easily switch between visual editor or normal coding) black & white graphs/images, but with color description (pointers telling this section is what color & that section is what color). Or maybe in the future, every image uploaded to Commons, we can always give the voice input (beside naming typing input), so that the uploader or other Wikipedia users can record the voice (or type the description and convert it into voices) to describe the photo (e.g. "A photo with a kid on the left, sitting looking into a pond with 5 ducks swimming towards him during late afternoon."). Basically it goes back to our childhood when our mothers read a storybook to us before we go to sleep, or during the era of radio before television appear, where people fully depend on sound for "visualization" when hearing a story (equivalent to "watching movie" nowadays) broadcasted from radios. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you so much for all of the great & beautiful response :') Chongkian (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Also check out this proposal..... *excerpt*

Problem: Available Text to Speech for all wiki Articles (Wikispeech extension). Let the articles talk when Required.
Proposed solution:
1. "Wikispeech" is a text-to-speech tool (in Beta) to make Wikimedia's projects more accessible for people that, for different reasons, have difficulties reading. At first make it available for en wikipedia . then asign more developer so that it can have cortana/siri/google assistant like "precise accent" & "natural voice".then make this extension/api integrate with mediawiki software. And please make the voice more natural like this "Cortana,Alexa" or "Google Assistant".
2. Google text to speech api is licenced under apachi 2.0 . Is it possible to ask them to make a github fork with CC/GFDL licence only for official wiki project, cause this proposal also humanitarian? They have natural-sounding speech with 30 voices, available in multiple languages and variants.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahm masum (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Debenben (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Saederup92 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tom Ja (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Temp3600 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lord van Tasm (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 23:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MYMMMC (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support We should be best in that... Conny (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as a good if vague idea. Much of this could also support the illiterate, who are increasingly online via mobile. HLHJ (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Anish M. Nagpal (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Boehm (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 11:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gce (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Making WP more accessible to visually impaired will make it more accessible for everyone. UI design should always be inclusive. -It doesn't necessarily mean WP will have to create a text-to-speech UI, just need to adapt WP to screen-readers and whatever other tools visually impaired already use for web-browsing. Sturban (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zache (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed! Dolotta (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support APh (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Webfil (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Warn of other revisions saved during edit-preview

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When editing in wikitext editor, the saving of other, intermediate revisions should be warned during each edit-preview, in case user intends further extensive edits after an edit-preview. Perhaps list:
    • Other user(s) saved 2 revisions
    • Last revision time: 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Recent revision count: +17 in past week
Those revision stats could be shown at top of edit-preview, above the edit-intro text.
  • Who would benefit: People who edit hot-topic pages could be spared major en:wp:edit-conflicts, when hoping other users aren't as busy, on the same page, to cause further edit-conflicts. The warned user could decide to save-page soon, or postpone further edits until a quieter time period. I have abandoned many, many 1-hour edits after seeing another editor had changed 15 paragraphs, as 3 revisions, in the same spots I was trying to revise. I really don't want to force-save my revision to edit-conflict another user's ongoing work, so just warn in edit-preview how 3 other revisions have been saved since I began this edit-session of the page.
  • Proposed solution: Focus on major, valuable improvements to the most-used wikitext editor, as improvements which could help thousands of editors per day.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Wikid77 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I like the idea. Although I usually get edit-conflicted by a bot dating my tags, so maybe I just need a setting to make Anomiebot wait. HLHJ (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wikid77, a script for warning an editor of changes done to a page while editing (or eve reading) a page was written in the Hebrew Wikipedia by 1Or, i"m sure it wouldn't be a challenge to translate the variables and make them understood to non-hebrew speakers (i myself have it on all wikis). I suppose it can be used as a base for other upgrades if needed. melo kol (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I like this, but I think a better solution is a warning for other editors that someone started editing the page (or section) in the last ¿5? minutes but has not finished (much as happens on Sensei’s Library. (I don’t know if concurrent edits to different sections cause conflicts.) PJTraill (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support --John Cline (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 16:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dcheney (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But do ignore editors/previews left open "too long" -- often days :D Wikicat (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tortliena (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Keith D (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Darwinek (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wunkt2 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support HLHJ (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Arbeite19 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sacamol (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I would like to know while editing if other edits have been saved. And on Wikidata I would like to know if edits have been saved while looking at the page. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sammyday (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support StringRay (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lord van Tasm (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Terra  (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This could be a strategy of "edit conflict". RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Edoli (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support No such user (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support MisterSynergy (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NaBUru38 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 11:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Seb35 [^_^] 22:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support BrownHairedGirl (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Arne (Amjaabc) (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support IKhitron (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tantusar (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support AkRaM (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I think a warning for other editors that someone started editing the page in the last ¿5? minutes is better. PJTraill (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 01:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support YFdyh000 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I lost a lot of work because of edit conflicts Minoo (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Netanel488 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvarosinde (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TemplateWizard in VisualEditor

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: An extension which guides users through the filling-in of templates, called TemplateWizard, was recently deployed in the 2010 WikiEditor. It works neither in 2017 WikiEditor nor in VisualEditor ('cause they are based on the same code, I guess). In the VisualEditor, there is a native widget, which does a very similar job like the TemplateWizard, just isn't that user-friendly and that nice. I can't possibly understand, why there are two code-wise completely different solutions for one problem, which should have only one UI solution.
  • Who would benefit: All users who switch between editors – nowadays they face different UI with different abilities for the very same purpose.
  • Proposed solution: Just join them! And use the newer one! So implement the TemplateWizard into VE!
  • More comments: Already discussed here and mentioned above in #Intra-template VisualEditor
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: YjM (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The VE template editor supports a lot more use cases than the wikitext one, specifically editing existing templates on the page, and editing multi-part templates such as tables built from multiple templates. The VE template editor works in the 2017 wikitext editor as well. It would not be possible to use the TemplateWizard in VE as it in based on editing wikitext directly, not Parsoid HTML, but ideally the UIs would be more similar. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a great a idea. I think there could be a categorized template system or framework for different article types with pre-polluted instructional and example content to aid in producing/constructing better quality articles. The instructional sample content could advise editors on how to justify data or information and how to better qualify sources. Bab-a-lot (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I want easier way to make Template, taxobox, infobox, table, etc RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Cross-Platform AutoWikiBrowser

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: As a Apple mac user, I am most concerned that there is no opportunity to utilise AWB when editing
  • Who would benefit: Apple users who are unable to use AWB
  • Proposed solution: further development of T157271 to allow for cross-platform usage of AWB
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T157271
  • Proposer: :JarrahTree (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@JarrahTree: Have you tried JavaScript Wiki Browser at en:User:Joeytje50/JWB?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks for notification - have applied for permission to use the browser :JarrahTree (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: You're welcome. You can use it on other wikis where you are an Admin at will.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support (as suggestor) :JarrahTree (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 15:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support web-based AWB? yes, please czar 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support JWB is nice but yes, this would be welcome. ~ Amory (utc) 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This would make me a much more effective gnome. Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Viswaprabha (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I would like to see AWB become web based and perhaps even have some server side actions. Wikidata integration would also be cool ;) ·addshore· talk to me! 10:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Courcelles 15:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sadads (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Clump (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Shmurak (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rschen7754 01:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Balajijagadesh (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 10:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Also Linux distributions need own version of AWB. Gce (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Helder 13:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ranjithsiji (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support YFdyh000 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Framawiki (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Movses (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, but not a web-based version, rather making AWB Mono compatible. This way the user interface wouldn’t change in any way (same .exe file on Windows, same config file, same desktop application with own window) and the codebase would require fewer changes, while it would work on Mac and Linux as well. Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Include section name in the diff

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When reading the revision diff, mostly it is hard to understand, which part of the page the diff line belongs to, because line number does not help so much - there is no line numbering in view mode.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone who opens page diffs.
  • Proposed solution: Regularly the differ does not show the changed line only, but also a line before and a line after, with no changes. I propose to show also the line with the most bottom subsection name the changed line belongs to, on both sides, as is, with equality signs. It's just one more line, but it will help to know exactly where you are. If there are many changes in the same subsection, the name will show only once, of course. This way the diff will be just a little longer - because section names are always shorter than regular lines and take less vertical space, but much more useful. Now we should copy all the time some part of changed line and search it using the browser searching mechanism.
  • More comments: There are two possibilities for using this feature - articles and talk pages, including forums as village pump, and it will help in both.
  • Phabricator tickets: None.

Discussion

  • I like it. It can be a possibility to infer the section automatically or in case the user is editing a section already infer a better section if there is one that's deeper than the one that's being edited. Dixtosa (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, If there is any value to line numbers it escapes me. This would be useful · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe changing UI it's a better way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talueses (talk)
    Maybe indeed, but as the change is smaller, it has more chances to be implemented. IKhitron (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I like this solution, it gives more context.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • IKhitron, would this be implemented instead of line numbers, or in addition to them? I support this solution, but I think line numbers should be kept as well, for they are very useful on CSS and JavaScript files' diffs. Guycn2 · ☎‏ 05:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Line numbers besides 1-3 have no value, there is no real connection between them and the place in the article, if there are infoboxes, galleries and such in the article, or even lines, that are connected into one paragraph without any indication in the text. Something that can really be seen in the article would be very helpful. I'd say: instead, but if someone sees any value in line numbers (I can't come up with a reason now), you can as well leave those. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Hi, Guy. I really do not care. I can thing about another need of numbers - for example, if you see in diff lines 351 and 353 you can guess they are close. But it isn't so important, and isn't part of this proposal. IKhitron (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the UI, I would suggest taking inspiration from the functionality (but not the formatting) for displaying context in source code diffs formatted as standard GNU diffutils patches (which is also the Git diff format). There, the context (function heading) is displayed along with the affected line numbers at the start of each chunk. Here's an example:
diff --git a/gtk/gtkmenushell.c b/gtk/gtkmenushell.c
index 4788590..cb94c64 100644
--- a/gtk/gtkmenushell.c
+++ b/gtk/gtkmenushell.c
@@ -585,18 +585,45 @@ gtk_menu_shell_button_press (GtkWidget      *widget,

   if (!menu_shell->active || !menu_shell->button)
     {
-      _gtk_menu_shell_activate (menu_shell);
+      gboolean initially_active = menu_shell->active;


diff --git a/gtk/gtkwidget.c b/gtk/gtkwidget.c
index 58ce2db..921c22a 100644
--- a/gtk/gtkwidget.c
+++ b/gtk/gtkwidget.c
@@ -2443,6 +2443,13 @@ gtk_widget_class_init (GtkWidgetClass *klass)
                                                               0.0, 1.0, 0.04,
                                                               GTK_PARAM_READABLE));

+  gtk_widget_class_install_style_property (klass,
+                                           g_param_spec_boolean ("window-dragging",
In the sample above, the first chunk:
@@ -585,18 +585,45 @@ gtk_menu_shell_button_press (GtkWidget      *widget,
modifies 18 lines of the gtk_menu_shell_button_press() function, starting at line 585, and the result is 45 lines long starting at line 585 in the output file. (I've trimmed the diff length so those counts aren't accurate.) The detailed line numbering would be overkill for us, but the function heading represents the equivalent context to our section headings.
So instead of adding the section line into to the diff output (when it may be pretty far from the chunk being displayed), and rather than replacing the line numbers, I suggest the section title be shown following the line number at each diff chunk, even where it's redundant with the previous chunk(s). (If it's on the same line as the line#, it's not taking up any extra space anyway.) My edit here might be preceded with
Line 22: ===Discussion===
in the diff view. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I still don't get it, what this line numbers are good for at all, except in some very special outliers like .css or .js pages. Nobody can see and follow them in any article that if bigger then a stub. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
One can use CSS to completely remove the line numbers, but this unfortunately no longer clearly separates updates to different parts of the page. To do this
  1. Go to Special:Preferences, tab Appearance.
  2. Choose one of the Custom CSS links, which will be red if you have not yet used it, and create / edit that sub-page of your user-page.
  3. Add .diff-lineno { display: none; }.
PJTraill (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If this really is an answer to me: Lines are quite useless on every page besides the very few .js and .css pages, where they might stay. But no indication at all where this diff is in the article is even worse. So as log as there is no appropriate solution, I'll stick to the numbers, very little use but better than nothing at all. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dixtosa, Peter (Southwood) and Guycn2. Please let me remind you that you expressed an opinion about the proposal in the discussion section, but still did not vote. If you still have on opinion, I'll be glad if you add it in the voting section, by support or oppose templates, depends on what do you think now. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Guycn2 · ☎‏ 12:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Avoid VisualEditor edits changing only the link text or only the link target

Edit proposal/discussion

 
Example of a VE edit diff where the user tried to correct a year with unintended results
  • Problem: There is an uncountable amount of VisualEditor edits changing only the link text, not the target, especially dates, like this (it’s far less common the other way round, but it should be accounted for as well).
  • Who would benefit: Readers by not getting confusing links, editors (mostly bot owners) by not having to fix them.
  • Proposed solution: I don’t know. It’s a long-standing problem, no ideal solution appeared so far. The main task is to find the solution, not to develop it.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This was touched upon in T55973#2792012, I agree that we could try to catch common errors like this. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One proposed solution is T56947 (show some kind of warning to users when they change only the text). T55973 itself proposed showing the link text in the edit dialog. That has been implemented, and anecdotally it has been ineffective, although I have not seen hard numbers on this yet. (Unfortunately filtering for these kinds of edits based on a text diff is not easy.) --Tgr (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a big problem for patrollers because VisualEditor's behavior is so unintuitive that even users with lots of experience fall victim to it, including trusted (autopatrolled) users, in which case patrollers will never see the change. The Hungarian editor community is pretty close to disabling VE over this (which makes it a big problem for outreach/growth as well). --Tgr (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A possible solution - By default, changing the text of a link on visual editor will Automatically delete the link (the text of the link will become normal text). editors will have to Manually recreate a new link. autopatrolled users would be able to cancel this condition in the preferences. Netanel488 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Visibility of articles needing defaultsort tags for leading articles

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: When new pages are created that begin with the articles "A", "An", or "The", editors do not always remember to use the defaultsort tag.
  • Who would benefit: Users who are looking for WP articles in categories alphabetically
  • Proposed solution: Create a Wikipedia function to show special page of any page that starts with "A", "An" or "The" (or foreign language articles?) that does NOT have a defaultsort tag present. Maybe a newly created tag that could be put next to defaultsort tag that signifies "Yes, we do want 'The The' to sort under 'The'." and that new tag would exclude it from being listed as needing to be reviewed for a defaultsort.
  • More comments: In the above, the homonym "articles" is used with two different meanings.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: KConWiki (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@KConWiki: I read this 2 times and I'm still unclear what you are proposing. Please dumb this down for me ;) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's requesting a special page that would report something like https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/31004. Anomie (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Which, unsurprisingly, illuminates a good chunk of pages which don't qualify for the point of the special page. As it happens, I don't think we should add a special page as part of CommTech given there is a known work around. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity - Thanks to Anomie for running that query - out of curiosity is it possible to run one for "The" instead of "A"? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That query does all three of "A", "An", and "The". It's just that the first several all begin with "A". Anomie (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, maybe category collation should take "A", "An" and "The" into account, and only require defaultsort if you really want the sorting to begin with "A". BWolff (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems like it is about making a sorting algorithm of "A CAT" (for say) into the category of "CAT"; so that people searching about cat or cats easily find the page ~ RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Also for the articles about famous people! Dvorapa (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Improve diff viewer - how it handles line breaks

Edit proposal/discussion

Discussion

  • I would add to the proposal that split/merged paragraphs should be detected correctly as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There was some work done on diffs in the past year or two and I'm not sure it ended up in the right spot. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That was WMDE Technical Wishes/Show text changes when moving text chunks, and as they describe in the page there, the related code is intensely complicated. I think this proposal and the new phab task are probably duplicates of phab:T7072. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Updated phab tickets section above.. I don't think the proposal is a duplicate, since the ticket you linked is not assigned to anybody, the community tech team can work on it. --Gryllida 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Don't worry about things being assigned. If CommTech can take it on, we can change who is assigned. :) --Izno (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Izno: moving paragraphs is better now (see link shared by Quiddity); however, this proposal is about edits which involve splitting a paragraph. --Gryllida 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's probably way beyond the scope of this proposal, but it'd be amazing if the diff view gained the ability to expand context above and below the displayed changes, ala GitHub's diff viewer. (This would be especially valuable for Pending Changes review. Turns out, to properly interpret someone else's changes can often require far more context than the existing changes view displays.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What I have faced; the diff viewer is excellent in comparing how the source code get changed; but it is not good to find how the change will appear to the reader after the change is executed. So just not only source code comparison; there should be a separate section/preview pane for comparison of changes in the page's look, changes of texts, rows , columns within tables, changes in pictures, etc. The colour hilight indicator should be present for executed page output comparison too. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support I can't understand why diff viewer still has many problems after all of these years. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support (as suggestor) hopefully this improves collaboration and edit review. :) Gryllida 08:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yeah, this is very hard to understand what actually changed. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support if it can be disabled in compare method of API. Iluvatar (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The Diff viewer has been improved in the last years, but is still not very satisfactory. It can't handle split/merged paragraphs, and see also the proposal "Include section name in the diff" Megatherium (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tim Landscheidt (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Galobtter (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Benjamin (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support β16 - (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gareth (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The diff viewer is not very "visual". It should be more visually comparable. Also there should be preview panes for comparing how the pages look like when the formatting commands are executed. Such as there is a change in a complex table or complex infobox in 2 edits. Then in the difference viewer there should be some indication of how the pages differ to the visitor; not just how the 2 pages differ to the programmer. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 02:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NaBUru38 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK   ▎enWiki 23:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ranjithsiji (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support PJTraill (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, the diff view should always show the smallest possible diff, not mark the whole paragraph as red and underneath show the same paragraph with tiny changes all in blue. Dvorapa (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Linguistical (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nemo 22:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support APh (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Cymru.lass (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Route users through knowledgebase before contacting OTRS

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The "Contact us" page at en:Wikipedia:Contact us generates a lot of mail to OTRS, many of which are sufficiently answered with boilerplate templates. The OTRS info-en queues are constantly backlogged. Many of the incoming emails (such as those pointing out errors in articles) would be more appropriate if posted to an article talk page instead, others would be best answered by online knowledgebase articles displayed to the user in response to a query. OTRS volunteers continually face a flood of emails that must be handled manually when many of these emails could be pre-filtered by an automated help system. This would free up OTRS volunteers to focus on more difficult and complex requests.
  • Who would benefit: Less workload for OTRS volunteers. Wikipedia community may end up getting more participation. Ceasing public exposure of email addresses would reduce the incoming spam load to OTRS also.
  • Proposed solution: Remove the email addresses from the "Contact us" pages and set up a system that guides the user to a solution before attempting to contact OTRS. The workflow would look like this:
    1. User has a question, goes to help page, which asks "What do you want to know or need help with?"
    2. User selects from list of common topics: I want to request an article, I want to write an article, I found an error, I want to be unblocked, I forgot my password, delete an article, etc.
    3. Depending on the topic, there may be another list: "I want to write an article" would provide options such as: I want to write about myself, I want to write about my company, I want to write about my band, etc.
    4. Depending on the selection, the user is shown a knowledgebase page which would be the boilerplate template that OTRS volunteers would manually respond with anyway — or is directed to one of the help desks or one of the reference desks.
    5. The knowledgebase page, if reached via this support flow, has a button at the bottom asking if this was helpful.
    6. If not, then the user is not shown an email address but is directed to a web form to fill in.
    7. If the message deals with an error in the article, the user is given an option to post the message to the appropriate article talk page rather than emailing, pointing out that the message will have a wider audience that way.
    8. If the user proceeds to emailing, the web form is processed so that an email is sent to the appropriate OTRS queue.
  • More comments: Much of the above can be accomplished by rearranging the pages in the "Contact us" hierarchy. OTRS agents should also be able to add new topics to the flow above, and create new pages, to prevent future mailings. We don't have to hide the OTRS email addresses, but rather show them as a last resort after the user has had a chance to get an answer without emailing. The system we have in place now absolutely doesn't scale, as evidenced by the backlogs and not enough bodies.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Very cool!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Great idea! Ciell (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this. Good stuff. Ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This would be useful for OTRS. It would also be useful in many other places. There is a sort of decision tree which new users can go through in the en:Wikipedia:Article_wizard, where new users can answer questions to land on the support they need. One way this could be developed is as a decision tree, chatbot, or whatever other publishing format this takes, and only for OTRS. Another way this could go is to technically develop interactive knowledgebases for general application in any situation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this as long as the email “info-[language]@wikimedia.org” is not removed from contact pages and support pages. People should still be able to email in directly, although a form like this would be nice to allow the more common questions to be answered without taking volunteer time. Vermont (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, the email addresses shouldn't be totally hidden. I added a note to that effect the comment in my proposal above. Anachronist (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not in favour of this. I have read thousands of OTRS tickets, and generally speaking they are written by people who do *not* want to edit Wikipedia. All of the other solutions offered on that page require editing. Some of them even refer the person to convoluted policies (e.g., en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) which even experienced Wikipedians have difficulty following. I'd like to see some evidence that a form is more likely to result in customer satisfaction than an email would; someone still has to respond to the form. I'd also like to see mock-ups of forms that would be able to feed directly into the OTRS system. I do not think that the proposal has shown that it will improve workflow, improve customer satisfaction, or reduce the frequency that individuals feel they need to contact someone. Risker (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    For tickets that result in a templated response (from our "knowledge base" of templates), the users should see this before writing an email. Companies who must provide technical support (Dell and A2 Hosting come to mind from personal experience) have similar systems in place because they have already been proven to improve workflow and reduce the need for manual communication. The intent of the proposal here is to provide some directed guidance and information to users before they send an email. Consider also that OTRS is not only in English, but also in other languages where agents are desperately understaffed. Some sort of guided direction and filtering is in order here. Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The "knowledge base" is almost exclusively geared to directing the person to edit Wikipedia themselves. That is not a good solution, and is very unfriendly to customers. (I already don't think we're customer-friendly when it comes to many of the responses we make to OTRS customers.) It may make OTRS agents happy, but it does almost nothing for the encyclopedia, and makes work for the editors and admins on the project who get stuck reverting or deleting junk or COI articles/edits. It expects that the OTRS customer actually *wants* to edit Wikipedia; many of them don't want to do that, and some of them already tried that and felt they were treated very poorly. (And in honesty, a lot of them *are* treated poorly.) So no, I think this is precisely the wrong solution to issues. Let's go back to backing up the perception of backlogs and overwork with some real evidence. Enwiki OTRS has about 100 tickets in it as I write; when I first started working on it many years ago, the typical backlog was 3-5 times that high. I don't have access to see the backlogs on other language queues, but this proposal is written in a way that is pretty specific to enwiki. So - let's get some information on the actual backlogs, the percentage of queries that are completed within 24 hours/72 hours/one week, how this compares to years previous, etc. I do have the sense that, just like in many areas of the project, some OTRS agents are feeling fatigued and frustrated. That doesn't mean the system isn't working, or that it should be revamped. It probably means it's time to recruit more OTRS agents and allow those who have been diligently making a large number of responses to slow down a bit. Burnout is a real problem - I know, I've been there - but the best solution for it is fresh faces to allow the most dedicated to take it a little easier. And I do think there is room for improvement with OTRS, but I don't think this would be one that leads to better customer relations, especially when the customers we're talking about are frequently concerned with what they see as serious problems in articles about themselves. Risker (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that throwing more bodies at a problem is not a good solution, when it's possible to implement a reasonably simple way to provide information to users before they write email. The impression you're giving is that this proposal is to replace humans with an automated process, and that's a straw man, not what is being proposed. Customers will still have the option to communicate with OTRS. Basically I'm proposing two things: that users be given information specific to their question before they contact OTRS, and that they are offered to post their question or complaint on an article talk page for broader exposure. They are not prevented from contacting OTRS. And so far, no one objecting has identified the harm in that. Anachronist (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I Would support this as it will bring down the workload for OTRS agents. FitIndia Talk 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • An extremely poor idea, unless reworked to just be an alternative, not an obligatory step, in which case it's just a poor and impractical idea. . We want to encourage people to contact us for problems, not set an extra barrier. Sometimes the knowledge base will be a preferable way, but not always and certainly not for all people. We here are relatively accustomed to working with complex processes, and many of us are not all that happy with asking strangers questions. The general public probably does not share either of these characteristics.
If we do it at all, we should make it an equal option , not a barrier. (And for it to even work in a minimally acceptable way, ,we would first have to rewrite the "knowledge base" into a form that is comprehensible by non-wikipedians. Based on my own experience, that will be very much harder than writing individual answers--and the hardest part of the rewriting will be figuring out what actually happens, and what would be the right way for things to work. To try to put policy into a knowledge base means having clear and non-self-contradictory policy. But very little of our policy is actually of that nature, as a little experience at any process like AfD will show--everything actually depends upon the interpretation, and while the two ends of what we accept or reject may be clear, a great deal comes in the middle, where what actually happens can be almsot random. To get this right is a multi year project, and the writing doesn't need the WMF. Once we've rewritten our documentation successfully ,then willl be the time to consider it. If a few good volunteers made it a priority, and received a some technical support from the Foundation, we might be ready in two or three years (assuming we agree on what should be said, which in practice will mean revisiting almost every guideline we have and rearguing it from scratch) -- but I wouldn't count on it. And then we'd have to maintain it . Don't understimate that, because we have never been able to fully maintain anything. DGG (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, make it an equal option. We are not at the stage of making architectural decisions about how this is structured. In my view, however, doing nothing is not an option. Anachronist (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just so we are all aware here. Any admin with the interface editor right can create .js forms that execute from other areas of the project. I have confidence in our WMF developers to create gadgets and what not but to expect them to create multi-language, in depth, form resources when they don't know exactly what we are going for is just a waste of their time and resources. All that will do is for them to make something for someone who actually cares about the project to tell them they are all wrong making nobody happy. It would just be easier to have someone else do it. Which isn't that hard if you know javascript. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support --Tohaomg (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Support as long as info wikimedia.org isn't removed from anywhere. Vermont (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dislike the idea of shoving people off through a "knowledge tree" when all they want to do is report some vandalism. Many people who email into OTRS don't want to edit but they still report problems. That is only one example but I can think of many more where this will do more harm than good especially if this is something that is mandatory instead of a side link that can be explored. On top of that, even if we were to do this it is silly to take up time and resources of the WMF when this can be done by anyone that knows javascript (and has the proper rights to put the script into the mediawiki namespace). Not to mention the required maintenance that would have to be done as policy and consensus changes. This should simply be handled and maintained by the people who have the most invested in it, the people that want it most. That way it can be exactly what they want. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jc86035 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The English Wikipedia OTRS agents discussed this in the OTRS-en-l email list. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ciell (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Geoff Who, me? 22:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For the reasons stated by Majora and Anachronist.PopularOutcast (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Enthusiastic support. These guides should be much more widespread across all Wikis. It empowers people. Joalbertine (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe think about a way to make it a bit easier to create a step-by-step guide, interactive flowchart etc., but this can already be done even without using a scripting language like js. No coding is necessary at all. Implementing one such instance of a guide is not something that should be done by software developers. Please keep software and content strictly separate. --Vexations (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this would be very hard to actually roll out and would be mired by many of the same cross community problems as we have seen with VE, Structured Discussions etc. It would sound nice in theory, but everyone wants something different out of it and before you know it, you are in years of development. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Worth giving a try Ruthven (msg) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 14:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Framawiki (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ronhjones (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Netanel488 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Autocomplete summaries in VisualEditor

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: In Wikitext editor the summary field automatically drops down an autocomplete suggestion field with possibilities already used in a history. But in VE there is no such autocomplete option.
  • Who would benefit: Every VE user (and NWE in the future as well)
  • Proposed solution: Add some dropdown under or over VE summary field with some autocomplete suggested values
  • More comments:

Discussion

  • @Dvorapa: This is an interesting suggestion! Can you elaborate, a bit? Where would you envision these autocomplete suggestions come from? You mention 'history' -- is that where we'd pick them up, from the user's recently used summary text? Or from the recently used summaries for the x amount of revisions in the specific article? Also, I don't see a drop-down for the edit summary in the wikitext editor; is that a gadget, or am I looking at the wrong place? Mooeypoo (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    In wikitext editor the summary field autocompletion is a feature of every browser. It can autocomplete from any summary used in the browser ever. In VE this feature is completely missing. For us who are really used to use it, this is really a blocker not to use VE (or NWE in the future). --Dvorapa (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    The one is a single line field, and browsers keep automatically keep history for that. VE uses a textarea, for which the browsers don't keep history and for which support for autocomplete and autofill is also quite shaky. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    Since browser support can be spotty, I'd recommend that this be a server-side feature (recent summaries from x amount of revisions by that particular editor). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 16:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    The browser support is not good, I know. But there already are some simple hacks online, like the one using contenteditable field. Or the one breaking input filed into multiple lines. But the server-side option would do as well. --Dvorapa (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, okay, thank you, I wasn't sure if this was a gadget that uses some specific guesses or not. As was mentioned, the difference is likely textarea vs input; browsers give you an autofill for "simliar" fields you've used for inputs, not for textareas. We could do something here, though, even as a gadget or extension to VE (or generally,actually) to display some suggested values to prefill into that box. The question of where those values will be taken from will have to be answered, but we can discuss and hash that out, as long as you don't expect this to be some smart(sy?) Artificial Intelligent machine ;) MSchottlender-WMF (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    I just miss the original 2010 wikitext editor behavior. I can just type first one-two letters, press Arrow-down and finally Enter. Routine edit saved with reused summary within 4 keys pressed. In VE I always have to write the whole thing, then press Shift+Enter, not such fast job here. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    Note that the AI version is phab:T54859. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the idea. Gryllida 22:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I really miss this in WTE2017 whenever I get dropped into one of the old interfaces. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate such a possibility too. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a Wiktionarian, I would like to have this working, and it can be with some buttons to click to indicate if it was about a definition change, etymology change, addition of a picture, addition of an example, addition of a synonym, etc. It could be very useful Noé (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Noé: There already is an existing gadget that adds buttons/dropdowns with pre-defined/adjustable summaries to click - on cswiki, enwiki, huwiki and skwiki I think. But the purpose of this wish is an autocomplete field (summaries already used in history). --Dvorapa (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've ported and improved the huwiki gadget to cswiki, therefore I have some experiences with these if you would be interested. --Dvorapa (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree remembering the history is quite useful. On the other hand, the browser default feature never worked well with section edits so even if a Javascript-simulated dropdown is probably not going to be as clever in some aspects, it will be a fair tradeoff IMO. --Tgr (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Remember: That what normally makes that dropdown is at first your browser (if you dont disable it in your browser preferences). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hydriz (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As a proposer Dvorapa (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Noé (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peter Gröbner (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support this seems easy to make, about a week of work Gryllida 09:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportTheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 15:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lyokoï (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support DannyS712 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support WeegaweeK ❀  t  c  08:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ysogo (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is already available as a gadget in the Hebrew Wikipedia and in some other languages, and also in mobile editing. It should be in all languages, on all platforms, and in all editing modes. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support 佛壁灯 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Eschoryii (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Easy way to reference pictures

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: If you want an unambiguous reference to a figure in the text, you currently have to number all figures manually or write "see figure on left/right/below... the second one in this paragraph... the one where the electric field lines are marked in red" and hope that nobody changes the picture or its location and the reader already knows how to distinguish electric from the magnetic field lines. Re-submission of Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Editing#Automatically_create_a_reference_id_for_pictures_with_a_label
  • Who would benefit:
  • Proposed solution: If you write <figref>Particle-path.png</figref> in the source code, all figures in the article are numbered automatically and <figref>Particle-path.png</figref> is replaced with the number that [[File:Particle-path.png|caption of the figure]] has been assigned. See scholarpedia for an example of how it can be implemented.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T7600
  • Proposer: Debenben (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • File names do not uniquely identify files on a page. --Tgr (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support Debenben (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Boehm (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tom Ja (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support DonBarredora (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Afernand74 (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 20:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Megatherium (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agusbou2015 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support PopularOutcast (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Temp3600 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zeromonk (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Noé (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support JAn Dudík (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lord van Tasm (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 15:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Automatik (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Penegal (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lyokoï (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ji.rodriguezmarin (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support No such user (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wargo (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Siddhant (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gryllida 07:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support BBCLCD (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 11:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This will be very useful, especially if it's not confined to pictures: it's good to be able to also reference media files, as well as pieces of text (e.g. theorems/lemmas in maths articles, glossed text in linguistics articles etc.) Uanfala (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Alexei Kopylov (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Arne (Amjaabc) (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support IKhitron (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ranjithsiji (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dvorapa (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Minoo (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvarosinde (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support XanonymusX (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A two-part system consisting of a reference in running text and a unique identifier connected to the referenced element (image link parameter for media, HTML/XML argument for tables and formulae etc.) would address Tgr’s and Uanfala’s concerns. Inline references without a referenced object would get an error message similar to what Cite uses (actually, this functionality might be part of Cite as well). Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Allow preview edit on protected page

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Requested edits to protected pages, especially templates, may be untested, leading to rejection or delays as problems are resolved.
  • Who would benefit: Readers, as templates are fixed more accurately and promptly; editors requesting edits to protected templates; editors fulfilling such requests.
  • Proposed solution: Allow an editor to preview an edit to a protected template even if they would not be permitted to commit the edit.
  • More comments: "Preview page with this template" is extremely useful but has no effect when testing in a sandbox. Of course, the editor should see a prominent warning before working on the page that it would not be possible to save the change. Once an editor is happy with their work, I would expect them to copy and paste the edited source into a sandbox ready for promotion by a template editor. The feature could apply to all pages or just to templates and perhaps modules. If there are concerns that editors will waste time writing material that cannot be saved, then it could be an opt-in preference (off by default).
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Certes (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I note it's possible to use Special:TemplateSandbox to test edits to protected pages as described at mw:Extension:TemplateSandbox#Usage. That is less convenient that doing it from a edit preview, though. Anomie (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could anger users as unsaveable: The idea of such editing, as an unsaveable protected page, is a topic for en:computer psychology, and most likely the better solution would be copy-to-sandbox, as noted above. The general strategy would be to avoid giving users "enough rope to hang themselves" just as dangling several nooses in a room could increase the risk of accidental hangings. Even as an opt-in mode, some users might imagine the page as saveable, before they realized the warnings. It would be very dangerous to allow preview editing unless the sandbox-save was understood as the only result, because enticing a user to spend hours editing the protected page, as if somehow useable, would likely trigger severe infuriating anger or livid outrage, because users often ignore short warnings of how the editing of a protected page could become a huge waste of time. The inability to edit a protected page really gets the user's attention, as no chance to save changes, rather than foster a false hope that careful, excellent changes surely would be saved. As for enable a run-preview of user-sandbox templates, that is a separate topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we need to avoid that problem. This screen shouldn't be accessible via the normal Edit tab. Perhaps the header which appears on View Source could have an "Edit without saving for preview only" button. This item is a proposal rather then a completed design. At the time of writing I wasn't aware of Special:TemplateSandbox, which does the job in a roundabout and awkward way. Improving that special page to allow a /sandbox suffix rather than a prefix, and giving it more publicity (a mention on the View Source header?) might be a better solution, as the user could save the sandbox in the right place ready for promotion by a template editor or admin. Certes (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with Special:TemplateSandbox using a "/sandbox" suffix is that you'd wind up picking up the sandboxes of every template with a sandbox, not just the one you're trying to check, and many of those are likely to be outdated or broken. If you want to test with an existing /sandbox-suffixed page, you can create a redirect to it under an appropriate prefix. Anomie (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think such feature should generate some sort of diff file or url that can allow the user to share that directly to people with right to make such edit. C933103 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support James Martindale (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme📞📧 15:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ANY protected-page editing should warn like Preview, change "Publish" to "PROPOSE", and only save in History (with "PROPOSED" tag) or handle like Extension:Moderation Wikicat (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ainali (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Noting the very real concerns in the #Discussion section. ~ Amory (utc) 12:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Viztor (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Weegaweek (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Benjamin (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - tucoxn\talk 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Aarkstore (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nihlus 22:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--►Neriman2003 talk 20:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 03:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NaBUru38 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Pf1127 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmxhmx 10:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dimon4ezzz (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Alexei Kopylov (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Arbnos (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Filipović Zoran (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dvorapa (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rodolfo Matias (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support YFdyh000 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Framawiki (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Probably the “View source” page could be preserved with a link/button somewhere on it (no separate tab) to emphasize the fact that the page cannot be edited. Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Change formatting of particular cells in VisualEditor

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Editing would be much easier if while working on tables we could change colours of particular cells in VisualEditor. I hate switching to source editing and typing ‘align-center’ every time I need it.
  • Who would benefit:
  • Proposed solution:
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T54180
  • Proposer: DS limak (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@DS limak: Is this phab:T54180? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@AKlapper (WMF): Yes, it is. DS limak (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting