Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Опитування побажань спільноти (2015)/Сторінки обговорення

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

Забезпечити доступ до сторінок обговорень прямо зі статті у мобільній версії

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T54165

Зараз у мобільній версії немає способу перейти на сторінку обговорення статті прямо з цієї статті, не набираючи повну назву сторінки обговорення в полі пошуку, або ж якщо стаття не містить відповідного вікіпосилання. Можливо, варто додати кнопку «обговорення», щось на кшталт тієї, яку ми вже маємо у стаціонарній версії вікі? Chess (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Filed phab:T100343. Simple requests like this can be directly requested on phabricator. --Glaisher (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is partially intentional left out though. A wikitext editor on mobile is a very confusing and unusable interface unless you are already able to use it... Just encountering it already seems to scare people. I think adding such a button right now would negatively impact the quality of the mobile website. We need to find a better interface first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor, though, I wish the mobile site was a lot better for actually editing. Chess (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried commenting / editing in Flow pages? It's not that bad already today. While there is not much precedent about writing encyclopedias and books on mobile devices (although even this is changing), by now there is a big load of prior experiences on mobile discussions, as seen in social media and blogs. Promising, at least for lighter discussions.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Виконано This is done. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed No, it's not. Nemo 08:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Голосування

  1.   Comment This seems to have been done; while it seems there's still some tweaking to do, there is now a 'Talk' button at the bottom of mobile pages. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Comment The 'Talk' button only appears if you are logged in. --Marc-André Aßbrock (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support if it hasn't been fully done yet. It should appear whether logged in or not. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support (If not yet fixed) I haven't noticed this being solved yet in using mobile, and it's certainly a great irritant not to be able to see talk pages. PamD (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Comment Use "Desktop Mode" if you really want to see an Article's Talk page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose Does not needed per Drcrazy102. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Z 12:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support -- (and any solution that involves "go to desktop mode" while on mobile is unacceptable.) Ijon (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Автоматична заміна посилань на обговорення при його архівації

Опис проблеми: Я часто запізнююся на «вечірку», однак буває, що мене, все ж, цікавлять колишні обговорення. Коли я бачу посилання на певну тему, яка мені цікава, я намагаюся перейти за ним, навіть якщо таке обговорення очевидно застаріло. Однак, це справжня мука спробувати та відшукати архівоване обговорення на сторінках обговорень.

Рішення: Коли БОТ архівує старе обговорення, цьому ботові слід пройтися по усіх сторінках, що містять посилання на обговорення, яке потрапило в архів, та змінити їх так, щоб вони вели на відповідну тему в архіві. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  •   Endorsed I agree, but it's difficult. It works only in cases that a link leads to the specific discussion using exact the same characters. Moreover, many projects don't want to linkfix talk pages by bots. -- Juetho (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manually archiving talk page threads is superseded by LQT/Flow's functionality. Helder 12:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Wikipedias have adopted Flow. One of biggest ones has not. Neither has the Wikimedia Commons, so to say "Manually archiving talk page threads is superseded by LQT/Flow's functionality" is not true on those wikis. Davidwr/talk 22:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Голосування

  1.   Support if it is possible--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. --Stryn (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Grind24 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support -- Singhalawap (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --2macia22 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Ckoerner (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Papuass (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Isacdaavid (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Usien6 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC) // Long overdue...[reply]
  11.   Support -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Comment Some users have a talk page with hundreds of backlinks. It would be extremely costly for a bot to find pages that needs to be updated, unless MediaWiki itself starts tracking links with anchors and provides some API to get backlinks with a specific anchor. Orlodrim (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support StevenJ81 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Jarekt (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support. ClueBot III already does this. Graham87 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support if it's feasible. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Regards, Kertraon (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Casliber (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support – Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Oppose It's a band-aid solution for a symptom of an utterly broken communications system that needs a total overhaul. —Pengo (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support YBG (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --MisterSanderson (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Strong support - a fix to a very common problem (one that, especially given the various mechanisms we use to archive talk pages, is difficult for a new user to grapple with) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support. Right, ClueBot III sometimes already does this, but its algorithm could be improved, as I often find myself doing this task manually. Or does ClueBot III only do that on pages where it's specifically been set up to do that task? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support More relevant to Wikipedia-talk space than user-talk. Noyster (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support - Bcharles (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support if technically possible. Beagel (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support Alkamid (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Глобальна (міжпроектна) сторінка обговорення користувача

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T88416

Як редактор, активний у багатьох проектах Вікімедіа, мені доводиться стежити за великою кількістю своїх сторінок обговорення, аби не пропустити нове повідомлення, і це попри те, що всі ці сторінки стосуються однієї людини, якій належить цей глобальний обліковий запис. Тим часом я вже збився з рахунку, скільки вікі я відвідував, та в скількох я час від часу робив редагування, тому в деяких з них я позалишав м'які перенаправлення на сторінку обговорення в моїй рідній вікі. Однак, виявляється, що користувачі з інших вікі не бажають покидати теренів своєї вікі та просто залишають коментарі прямо під м'яким перенаправленням, при чому я про це не можу дізнатися, якщо тільки не відвідую регулярно усі вікі в пошуках нових повідомлень (а я таки не роблю цього).

Тому я пропоную надати дописувачам можливість за бажанням активувати глобальну сторінку обговорення на рівні користувача — це має бути щось на кшталт глобальної сторінки користувача на Меті. Розгляньте доцільність додавання таких функцій при увімкненні глобальних сторінок обговорень користувачів:

  • До них має бути доступ та можливість редагування прямо з локальних вікі; сам робочий процес для інших користувачів, звісно, залишається незмінним
  • Нові повідомлення надходять із автоматичним тегом, в якому вказана вікі, з якої вони походять (напр., «Це повідомлення було написане в de-wiki»)
  • До вікіпосилань мають додаватися відповідні префікси, якщо їх ще не додав автор коментаря
  • Багатомовний функціонал: всі структурні частини сторінки обговорення відображаються мовою тієї вікі, в якій користувач переглядає цю сторінку, або ж відповідно до налаштувань користувача, що її відвідує; можна додати шаблони Вавилона, такі як: de-N, en-4, $DISPLAY_WIKI_LANGUAGE-0; …
  • Глобальна сторінка обговорення користувача замінює усі локальні сторінки обговорення користувача, які мають бути архівовані під час початкового встановлення глобальної сторінки обговорення користувача

—MisterSynergy (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Random question for anyone: The Collaboration team is currently working on cross-wiki notifications, although I don't know what the current ETA is. If we had cross-wiki notifications, would you still be interested in having a cross-wiki user page? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the original proposer: Yes, I would still be interested since I still don’t see a necessity to own and maintain dozens (70 at the moment) of own talk pages that all serve exactly the same purpose: talk to me. Wikimedia projects have become much more international by the introduction of Wikidata, thus we visit and edit more projects meanwhile than we did years ago, and with SUL we can finally centralize of lot of functionality. However, reliable cross-wiki notification would indeed improve the situation a lot if we didn’t get cross-wiki talk pages. Other opinions are still welcome. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your response. I agree this would be really useful. There are several elements for this proposal that require structured discussions -- separating individual discussions from the page, posting the same discussion in multiple places, tagging discussions with the wiki they originate from. This is basically Flow functionality. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a rather complicated task to solve, and I don’t expect fast results. If Flow would help to solve this, I would be happy (although “my” de-wiki community actually seems to oppose Flow, unfortunately). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Голосування

  1.   Support בנימין (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support MisterSynergy (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support While this wouldn't really benefit me, I can see that it would be very useful. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Gnom (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Lugnuts (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Voll (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support This would only be useful to me with cross-project combined watchlists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support. --Stryn (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support. --MGChecker (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Grind24 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support - as an opt-in option which would undoubtedly benefit many users, it should obviously be done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support as long as it's restricted to the opt-in that is proposed here. I would detest having my user talk page on multiple wikis replaced by one global one, but that's no reason to oppose it as an opt-in when lots of people want it. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support --° (Gradzeichen) 21:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --YodinT 02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Holder (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Comment I guess the one concern is how would one prevent abuse? Who would have admin rights over that page? Would this not solve the problem [1]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support —Ynhockey (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support but please allow some "home wiki": Most users will have one main user page, and adding "This comment was added on xx-wiki" everywhere and the need to prefix all links would be annoying. Also, many users won't understand that (and how, and why) they have to prefix links. A home wiki would also solve the admin right question. --mfb (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support--KRLS (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --Nastoshka (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support tufor (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support Goombiis (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support -- Wittylama (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) The logical extension of SUL is to have single user userpages and talkpages, as well as cross-wiki watchlists (which is another suggestion in this survey).[reply]
  30.   Support -- Singhalawap (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support --Dodi123 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support --Isacdaavid (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support--46.225.68.244 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support==Wammes Waggel (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support Apokrif (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support --Nouill (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support, provided that one can opt out for a given project. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Comment I have a hard time imagining how we're going to make people prefix their talk page comments (bots can't be counted on for this, they can't operate until the link is posted), and how we'll ensure that *other* users who wish to leave messages for people aren't confused and aren't being taken to another project. I realize this is considered very desirable by some people, but I wonder if we will be creating two classes of communicators. There's already been some fairly significant social pressures on multi-project editors who have blanked their Meta userpage rather than have it published everywhere. Risker (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support Helder 23:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support Tar Lócesilion (queta) 00:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support Good idea. Regards, Kertraon (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support Popcorndude (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support --Jarekt (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.   Support I've tried XEcho, but it does not seem to work very well (or I could not manage to make it working for me!) Litlok (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.   Support Sidevar (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.   Support --Barcelona (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.   Support Anything thing that makes it easier to branch out to other wikis is a good thing.  DiscantX 12:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51.   Oppose, this would kill independence of individual wikis. Global talk pages would fall out of the scope of local recent changes / watchlists / user contributions / what links here etc.: if a user from dewiki wants to ask a user from frwiki about their edit in enwiki, where will this talk page end up? Logically it should be on enwiki so that other enwiki users can notice it and comment on it. In addition, for users active in many wikis global talk pages are useless as long as guidelines in these wikis are different: for the very same edits in two wikis one can get a praise from one wiki and a warning from another, as what can be a norm in one wiki can breach rules in another. Thus make cross-wiki notifications/watchlists for talk pages but not cross-wiki talk pages — NickK (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.   Comment conceptually this is a useful idea if opt-in only, but the technical, policy and usability issues seem overwhelming. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54.   Neutral I'd rather see global notification so that when accessing any wiki I receive active notifications from all wikis. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55.   Oppose Per NickK. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56.   Support Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57.   Support A small step towards cleaning up this failed mess of a wiki communications system. Pengo (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58.   Oppose per NickK. --Carrotkit (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59.   Support But maybe an alternative would to it easy to transclude talk from all wikis. YBG (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60.   Support as opposed to doing nothing, but cross-wiki notification would suffice. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61.   Support Rzuwig► 11:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62.   Support — Arkanosis ✉ 14:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63.   Comment - The Collaboration team is currently working on cross-wiki notifications... - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65.   Support Bináris tell me 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66.   Support And wish Flow pages can also be global. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67.   Support --Yeza (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68.   Oppose per Doc James and NickK and others. Cross wiki notifications is a good solution. This creates jurisdictional and other messes. Alsee (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69.   Oppose for now. Let's implement cross-wiki notifications first, then decide whether this is needed. Implementation of cross-wiki notifications is not a Community Tech project. MER-C (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70.   Comment I suppose, this could be done without such major changes to the talk pages themselves, it would be enough to create a UI, which provides an access to all the talk pages through all the projects, but displays only some of them, i. e. the newest messages. The messages themselves stay on the projects they have been written on. So there would be only 2 functions of this utility: a display function, and an access function. As an example, a user from en-wiki answers the message, written on de-wiki - this answer appears only on dewiki, which means that the user made an edit on de-wiki, not on en-wiki. The user that has enabled this utility, sees all his messages on all the projects, but his en-wiki talk page holds only en-wiki messages, his fr-wiki talk page really holds only fr-wiki messages, and so on. This is the way I see it. In this case it would also be useful to have an easy means to switch from the global to an ordinary talk page and vice versa (using some special tabs or buttons)--Piramidion 18:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71.   Support - I like the alternative implementation suggested by User:Piramidion on point 70 above. Bcharles (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72.   Support --Ochilov (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73.   Oppose I think cross-wiki notifications will be enough (if not, we could re-open this later). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74.   Support Abyssal (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75.   Support as an opt-in Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76.   Support --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77.   Oppose now per Doc James and NickK and others. Different issues (jurisdiction, opt-in or compulsory etc) need additional consideration. Cross wiki notifications would be a good solution for meantime. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Talk_pages/uk&oldid=25543506"