Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Editing

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Community Wishlist Survey 2017
Editing
25 proposals, 372 contributors



Provide easy interface for replacements in the Visual Editor

  • Who would benefit: At least fawiki, hewiki, rowiki and ruwiki users, presumably many more
  • Proposed solution:
    What most of the scripts needs are:
    • A utility function for doing replacement (similar to ve.dm.Document.prototype.findText maybe ve.dm.Document.prototype.replaceText)
    • The replacement should be able to keep the annotations
    • Advance use: sometimes (as you can see in fawiki) replacements are context aware. It may be too far to support such complex replacements within ve itself, but providing documentation how to do it would be great.

Discussion[edit]

Voting[edit]

VisualEditor: Allow editing of auto-generated references before adding them

  • Problem: It's only a small thing but one that bugs me. When you use the VE's ability to autogenerate a reference based on a URL, oftentimes there will be need to manually fix the generated ref. However, currently you have to first save the incorrect reference before editing it.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone using VE
  • Proposed solution: I propose another button "edit" on the autogenerated reference besides add to fix mistakes immediately.
  • More comments:

Discussion[edit]

Similar, yes, although that solution would skip the "insert" button which my proposal would keep. On a side note, people should really use better descriptions of their feature requests in Phabricator because when searching for previous proposals, I could not find that one. Regards SoWhy 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Make it possible to format tables in VisualEditor

  • Problem: Currently it's not possible to do many different things for tables using visual editor. You can add rows and columns, but you can't for example add background colours or set text alignment. You always need to change to the wikitext editor if you want to add background colours, and for newbies it may be very difficult to add html code.
  • Who would benefit: Table editors.
  • Proposed solution: Implement more tools for table editing.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T54180, phab:T103276, phab:T99890
  • Proposer: Stryn (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations: none yet

Discussion[edit]

Inline styles are both technically inferior (they make it impossible to have different presentation for different devices, screen sizes etc) and result in poor readability and maintainability of the wikitext. We shouldn't encourage them. TemplateStyles should be the preferred solution for table styling. (That still requires the ability to edit classes of table cells, if not their other properties, though.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pretty valid uses, such as aligning text right for number values as well as setting sort values on individual cells. (Though, I agree, the typical "PRETTY COLORS!" type is pretty obnoxious.) --Izno (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are valid use cases for formatting table cells, but editing inline CSS is not the right implementation for them. Define the styles somewhere else and implement some kind of HTML class editor in VisualEditor. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get stuck on the discussion above as to what should be possible with tables in VE. Merging/separating cells, copy-pasting to/from excel/libreoffice and many more are possible.--Strainu (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this basically the same as the first one: Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Editing/More table types in editing section? Maybe they should be merged together. --Dvorapa (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this should include phab:T180867/phab:T169306. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

VisualEditor: Allow references to be named

  • Problem: One cannot enter a name for a reference in the VisualEditor which will assign ":0", ":1" automatically to references used multiple times.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone using VE
  • Proposed solution: Allow editors to assign individual names to references when clicking on a reference in the VE
  • More comments: According to the Phab ticket, it was deemed too complicated for Q3 back in 2015 but since then there was no further updates. I'm certainly not a master coder but I don't see how this is really a complicated problem, considering that apparently this was once possible and has been removed.

Discussion[edit]

Endorse. A piece of code of type <ref name=":0"> is ugly and very unhelpful (especially when editing in wikitext mode). --Vachovec1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. Maybe take the first authors last name and add the year of publication to it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A user came into -help with this exact concern and some ideas were discussed around it, eluding to the auto-generation Doc James is mentioning. There seems to be some good suggestions in the comments of the phab tickets. Although it gets a bit iffy for online references. One person suggested domain, underscore, page name (If only a bare url is given) (e.g. bbc_magazine-23969607), which isn't horrible but not a ton better than just [domain]-[sequential number]. Either way, this is a vast improvement over the current system. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If there's one thing I hate, it's reffing an article in VE then having to tediously go back through in source mode to rename all the refs. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems being conflated here:

  1. Allowing manual addition of reference names
  2. Automatically generating a reference name based on properties of the reference

The difficulty of solving the first problem depends on the class of user you're aiming the solution at. If you're aiming it at advanced users, it doesn't seem to difficult, for example, to add a reference name field to the dialogue shown when you edit a reference. I don't know exactly where it'd go, but that doesn't seem too complex to figure out. If you're aiming it at new users, it's significantly more complex. Newer users using visual editor probably won't understand what a "reference name" is given that it doesn't affect anything about the article layout in visual editing mode, so you'd need to explain it to them. Putting it in the edit dialogue is probably too late for them, so you'd need to add it earlier in the workflow, which would increase the complexity of the basic workflow of adding a citation, which does not seem like an acceptable tradeoff. So, designing it for newer users would involve a lot of time and thought, since the risks of disrupting their workflows are much higher.

The second problem isn't too complicated in principle, but the devil is in the details. The biggest issues are hash collisions and incorrect assumptions about the structure of references, see phab:T169841#3411881 for more details on that. A fallback would be necessary, which would likely be the numerical system. These problems can be mitigated of course, but we might end up with a situation that isn't much better than the current one. That could be acceptable if the current situation is suboptimal enough.

A combination of these two solutions might be nice; use some automated system to generate nice(ish) reference names to solve the problem with newer users, and add a reference name field to the edit reference dialogue for advanced users. That means the workflows of new users are not changed at all, and advanced users have nice ways of changing things in the visual editing environment.

For the record, since I've often had people quote thinking-out-loud brainstorming like this like it's some form of immutable truth, I want to point out quite clearly that brainstorming is exactly what this post was. Things could turn out to be more simpler or more complex than I imagine, or the solutions I brainstormed here might not be the ones that are worked on, if the item is worked on at all. :-)

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deskana (WMF): My post was about the first one, which should be easy. Useful autogenerated names would be neat but it would usually be sufficient to be able to name them manually. I do think the auto-generate problem should be a separate post here to avoid said conflating. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use a manual field myself, but a simple automatic one shouldn't be difficult--such as the first character of the title field if present followed by a number, or the year field similarly. DGG (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Deskana (WMF). There is no conflatulence. We mortal editors are not permitted to create named references that are numerical only, and nor should VE be allowed to do it with a colonic workaround. Having fun! Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Review individual edits

  • Problem: Revisions may persist for long periods of time because they're good edits and no one has a problem with them, or they may persist for long periods of time while being bad edits, simply because no one has noticed them and reverted them. Editors waste time verifying revisions that have already (silently) been verified by other people, while not noticing ones that haven't been reviewed.
  • Who would benefit: Editors, everyone
  • Proposed solution: Have an "upvote" or "reviewed" button next to revisions that indicates that you've looked through the diff and verified that it's a good change. A number on the revision history log will indicate how many people have reviewed it.
  • More comments: This would have no bearing on what revision is shown to viewers or anything like that. It would just be a helpful way to see at a glance which revisions have been checked by real human beings and are considered trustworthy/valid, and which diffs have not been viewed, and may need more attention to catch vandalism or poor quality changes. It's also psychologically similar to the "Thanks" feature, in that people can see that their edits were approved/appreciated by others and they aren't laboring in vain. It would also show editors that the revisions they're undoing were approved by multiple other people, making them think twice before wholesale revert warring. It would also help in finding the original source of subtle vandalism that has gone unnoticed for a while, so it can be reverted.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

mw:Help:Patrolled_edits exists. Not sure if what you're asking for is covered at least partially by https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T25792, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T147012, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T19237, or other tasks that exist on the subject. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlaggedRevs can be configured to work like that. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Omegatron: There are already technical solutions to this (as mentioned above). Do either of those meet your requirements? Kaldari (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those look similar, but no, not the same. This would not "set those revisions as the default revision to show upon normal page view" or require "a 'patrol' permission", and multiple people could approve the same revision, not a binary approved/unapproved state. — Omegatron (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with @Omegatron: that users need a way to know whether edits have or have not been reviewed by someone. A solution for this does exist already—it’s called the RCPatrol flag. Almost 100 wikis use RCPatrol today, but it was turned off on English Wikipedia and many others. @Quiddity: researched this situation recently and assembled a very clear analysis, along with recommendations. It’s an enlightening read.

I strongly recommend that RCPatrol be turned on for English and all other wikis. Once it is on, it will be a simple matter to, for example, implement a filter for Patrolled/Unpatrolled on Recent Changes and Watchlist. The various issues that people had with RCPatrol (such as the ! symbol on Recent Changes, which displeased many) can be addressed easily, in my opinion.

The fact that a technological solution exists already for this will help tremendously with getting it done, but it does not negate the value of this proposal. There are technological, design and community issues that must be worked through in order to turn RCPatrol on. Having community behind such a proposal would make success much more likely.

Omegatron, would RCPatrol solve your problem? If it does, perhaps it might be a good idea to rephrase the Solution section somewhat, to make it more about the general goal, and to retitle the proposal along similar lines. E.g., Have a way for editors to know if an edit has been reviewed. JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both patrolling and FlaggedRevs can be used coordinate one review per revision (without necessarily changing what revision the reader sees) and both are integrated with the existing patrol/review tools. Neither really supports multiple reviews though. Patrolling can't even store them (it's just a per-revision boolean flag); FlaggedRevs allows multiple reviews (with comments, optionally) per revision but only the last one is exposed in the UI, the rest only show up on Special:Logs. Also since English Wikipedia uses FlaggedRevs for flagged protection already, if you want to allow anyone to review revisions without interfering with that, you'd have to introduce a new review level which would make the configuration and UI more convoluted.

OTOH the requirement to have multiple reviews per revision seems somewhat disconnected from the problem statement. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Ping users from the edit summary

  • Problem: I recently saw a person wondering how to notify someone of a change, without necessarily leaving a message on the chat page.
  • Who would benefit: Every editor
  • Proposed solution: The solution would be to allow notifications when a user page is linked in a change summary.
  • More comments: A recurrent subject, which has not yet been resolved. It doesn't seem so complicated to implement. There would surely be some details to review, such as revert messages that send useless pings.

Discussion[edit]

I agree it is very time consuming to try and communicate with every editor/user one encounters. Even sending thanks can be cumbersome. There are also other reasons users are reluctant to post on a talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me[reply]

There was a similar request on the huwiki village pump (where we were collecting ideas for the wishlist) for pinging users from the FlaggedRevs review summary (the optional comment field when you mark an edit as reviewed). --Tgr (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Framawiki: do you have any idea how this should work? The summary field is already short and I am hesitant to support a proposal which can shorten it even more. Perhaps a secondary field for names of pinged users? --Vachovec1 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The summary field is already short" It is planned to deploy allowing for longer comments very soon (this was worked as part of a previous year wish), so that should not be a large concern. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)::to propose a new field, why not. I don't really see the benefit.[reply]
Vachovec1: To propose a new field, why not. But I don't really see the benefit to add something else to this well complicated system. For how to implement this, it is also possible to manage this after the vote, or let the team decide :)
The only problem I see with the implementation of this idea, which has already been written somewhere, is the risk of edits escalating, which would be a means of discussion. But it seems fair enough to me. --Framawiki (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the comments below mention this, I would suggest that we integrate this with the way in which we have proposed support of "hashtags" as well in edit summaries: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123529 . The idea being that edit summaries could be a tool for tracking both relationships to individuals activities (hence the ping suggested here), or to larger campaigns of activity (i.e. a WikiProject, event, or editing campaign in the vein of WikiProject Women in Red). Making the edit summaries more "connected" with the activities throughout the ecosystem -- would make it much easier to build tracking and coordination tools, to help folks feel like their work is part of larger efforts. Sadads (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that some projects has banned polemic in the summary field, and allowing discussions with other users in the summary field would go against this. That said I believe this is a bad idea in general, as notifying other users should be part of the general notification structure. A small number of predefined notifications could be sent to other users that has the page on their watchlist. They should be predefined, otherwise the total workload increase as the messages must be wetted. — Jeblad 23:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Wikitext substitutions should work in ref and gallery blocks

Discussion[edit]

Voting[edit]

Find & Replace feature

  • Problem: It is hard to observe wrong punctuation
  • Who would benefit: every Visual Editor user
  • Proposed solution: Create a button in the Visual Editor in the Find & Replace dialogue to mark non-typographic Quotation marks, non-typographic apostrophes, wrong dashes and double spaces etc and then the editor can decide whether it has to be changed or not.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Dexxor (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations: none yet

Discussion[edit]

Voting[edit]

Converter from Latex and/or MSword

  • Problem: Despite VE, many people still end up writing content in googledocs, MSword or LaTeXand wanting to copy it over (especially in editathons and WikiJournal article submissions). Additionally, many possible maths-focussed contibutors would benefit from being able to copy over equations writtn in LaTeX.
  • Who would benefit: Complete novices. Those who have written content outside of wikimedia but now wish to import it. Editathon organisers. WikiJournal editors receiving article submissions in formats other than wikimarkup. Mathsy types who want to paste in equations.
  • Proposed solution: It's pretty easy to convert between MS word, Googledoc, LaTeX, and PDF, so being able to convert to wikimarkup from any of these would be extremely helpful, even if it needed manual tweaking afterwards to deal with references and images to import to commons.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

The sentence "It's pretty easy to convert between MS word, Googledoc, LaTeX, and PDF" is just not true. PDF can't be converted to anything useful in most of the cases. (Tools like pdftotext or pdfimages just extract some parts of the file)

There are tools like w:en:pandoc that are able to convert many formats (except pdf, of course) to mediawiki wikitext. However this needs manual post-production. So imho it would be better to create a kind of centralized 'service' for those who have technical problems (no matter of what kind). -- seth (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to say that there's not true conversion from pdf, even by MSword itself. However even just pulling text, images, and basic formatting like header level would be good. Extracting references would, of course, be the most useful but also the most difficult. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We have wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tools#Importing (converting) content to Wikipedia (MediaWiki) format. I grant that something more unified and consistently-maintained would be nice, but how feasible? This is a seriously difficult task. seth is right; I've used pandoc, it can cope with the bog-standard things well, but if you have, say, image captions, you will be doing a lot of manual editing. It could be useful to set up a program to learn from how humans manually correct automated conversions. But this request might basically be an AI problem.
Export functions are a similar problem. Orgs like PLOS are already using Mediawiki as a publisher's tool, and need to import author's copies, and produce other formats at the end of the processing; they might already have something specialized. But a lot of publishers seriously use hired typists for format conversion.
For equations, what modifications do you want to what we have? LaTeX is currently being very slowly updated; version three should be out any decade now. Stand-alone HTML 5 would be a nice format to have, and presumably easier.
If I've understood you correctly, extracting refs is the easy bit. Grab the DOIs and look them up, if there are any, or use more sophisticated scraping techniques if there are not DOIs. Zotero does this for me all the time, turning a downloaded PDF into a full citation database entry. It's open-source, I think we already use bits of its code. HLHJ (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaTex, maybe, but Google Docs and M$ Word? No way. We should not endorse proprietary software. I imagine one prominent usecase for this would be PR/marketing spammers preparing drafts offline. MER-C (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Re-use a citoid citation in VisualEditor's wikitext mode

  • Problem: As you can read in the Phabricator ticket, currently in VE's wikitext mode we cannot re-use citations as we can in VE. This function of VE is one of the best; the software makes us the necessary code, we have to just insert them by clicking anywhere we want. However, it doesn't work if we use wikitext mode. First, we have to switch to VE mode to use this function, then switch back. It's not comfortable and logical.
  • Proposed solution: Add this function to wikitext editor too.
  • More comments:

Discussion[edit]

Voting[edit]

Auto-save feature in Visual Editor and WikiText Editor

  • Problem: We have nice new editor surfaces, like Visual Editor and WikiText Editor 2017, which are planned to use as default in the future. But unlike the old editors, the new ones lose the not-yet-saved content in case of a browser/system crash or an accidentally closed tab. We should offer a function to save the session data, at least as well as it worked until now.
  • Who would benefit: every editors
  • Proposed solution: Implement a kind of auto-save feature for VE (see the ticket)
  • More comments:

Discussion[edit]

Other duplicated Phabricator tickets: T169965, T175489 etc. Samat (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same in Flow: T139804 (Note that Phabricator and ContentTranslation already have autosave so the common objection that this would result in evil users storing illegal things in the drafts and causing liability is moot.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic functionality, and should have been available from the start. There are various browser-level workarounds , but it should be a basic facility. DGG (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is critical to make sure the autosaved data truly is wiped out quickly. I mean, suppose an editor wants to use Wikipedia as his alibi after he is framed for murder. Well, right now, everyone in the courtroom can see when his account made edits without having to leave their seats. But if you do this, then his lawyers may be serving you with a subpoena saying show us the files that indicate he was steadily working on the text in between those times. Wikipedia doesn't want a subpoena -- not even when it might help to show innocence, and definitely not in the more likely nefarious case where a public or private censor is arguing in criminal or civil court that an editor was involved in posting something that mere peasants shouldn't be saying. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Automatically create a reference id for pictures with a label

  • Problem:

There is a problem, when an article has e.g. different pictures included. To address the pictures within the article, an unambiguous reference to the picture is necessary.

Example:

  • There are three pictures in the article, with the captions: "Figure 1: xyz", "Figure 2: abc", "Figure 3: klm".
  • In the text they are referenced with fig. 1, fig. 2, and fig. 3.
  • Now another picture is added between fig. 2 and fig 3.
  • The former figure 3 has to be renamed to figure 4, and the new figure gets the number 3.
  • This procedure is difficult and prone to errors, when there are dozens of figures in the article.
  • Who would benefit:

Editors of article with a large number of figures.

  • Proposed solution:
  • A figure, which should get a number, is provided with a unique label. (e.g. in the example above "xyz", "abc", "klm")
  • The figure gets a certain number for each label.
  • The labeled figure's caption starts with "Figure ###", where ### is the number of the label.
  • In the text fig. "abc" is replaced by fig. ###.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T7600

Discussion[edit]

  • An example of something like this can be seen in Scholarpedia. They use <figref>Particle-path.png</figref> to insert a reference to an image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of a weird proposal. The use of figure references is kind of unknown on most wikis, or used only rarely. It doesn't seem like a very high-value proposal. --Izno (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perhaps like the en:Chicken or the egg causality dilemma. If it is hard to implement a correct caption for figures, it is no wonder, that there are so few examples. Once it is easy to reference a certain figure correctly, more authors might consider using it. And that is why there is this wishlist: To identify the need for such a feature. --Boehm (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful that this is an egg. Or a chicken. The more likely reason it is unused is because everyone puts their images next to the text they want to highlight, or gives the image a detailed caption that should and does make a linking tool unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, authors put their images next to the text and refer to the image e.g. as the image on the left. But in some articles there are more than one figures on the left, and on the mobile version there is no left or right at all. It is a bad style to reference the figures that way. In wikibooks it is the most common way to address the figures with a unambiguous number, like in classical books. --Boehm (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have a unique label for every figure on the wiki: the filename. Do you want to be able to make a (local?) alias for it? Would a redirect do?
    I think numbering figures is archaic in an environment with hyperlinks, but I am well aware that Wikipedia is often used in environments without hyperlinks, like print.
    In hypertext, I recently referenced a figure with <ref>[[:File:Penn NY original floor.jpg|Photo]], 2015</ref>. This would not work in a print-out, as although the picture is in the article the filename of it would be hidden in print. Writing (see [[:File:Infographical Marvelousness|figure of I.M.]]) would also not work in print. We can already refer to sections: {{Crossreference|selfref=no|(for an illustration, see also the diagram of Infographical Marvelousness, the topmost image on the left in [[#Section|Sectionname]])}}. This would work in print.
    I'd support an extension of this to do internal linking to figures as well as sections, for off-wiki reusabilty (what do print-out conversions do now? anyone know?). You could then have (see [[#File:Infographical Marvelousness|figure of I.M.]]), and when it was exported for print it would re-format to add the description of the (relative?) location of [[#File:Infographical Marvelousness]] and optionally a figure number of the same file, both calculated on-the-fly (the former would also simplify the "See *" templates at Wikipedia:Template:See above, but this might not be worth the processing). Dynamically numbering the figures as you went to print would seem to make more sense than cluttering a hypertext version with them. Any what-you-see-is-what-you-mean editor will automatically number figures for you, so I entirely agree that shuffling them manually is silly. HLHJ (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We already have a unique label": No, we just have a unique label for a file. If files are used multiple times (e.g. a logo, or a reference picture, which is compared to different modifications) it is no more unique.
    • Some figures have no captions, therefore they don't need a figure number, which they would get in case of the file name label.
    • "Would a redirect do?": No, a redirect is nice to have, and an unambiguous reference number is essential.
    • "I think numbering figures is archaic": The same is valid for numbered citations, which a used in every article. Do you really think that numbering citation is archaic?
    • We need in addition to a label a figure counter. This can not be realized with any of your solutions.
    • "so I entirely agree that shuffling them manually is silly.": Yes it is. And thousands of authors are doing this silly thing in lack of an automatic numbering, which any other text editing software can do despite the wikimedia.
    --Boehm (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is interesting, but on a slightly higher level. We lack a mechanism to reference a lot of things on the page, and put some kind of highlight on that thing. The problem isn't really to renumber the sequence, that can be fixed pretty easily, the problem is to create the in-page references in a consistent way. Note also that some of the in-page references should be automatically generated, and some of those should also have some kind of visual anchor. This can be described as a smart anchor-template, but not quite. It needs to interface with the parser to work properly, and probably it would imply changing some extensions. — Jeblad 23:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Make Thanks and Undo links easier to distinguish

  • Problem: Location of Undo proximity to Thank tool
  • Who would benefit: All Wikipedian Users
  • Proposed solution: Please relocate Thank tool away from Undo
  • More comments: It gives me headache when I accidentally clicked on diff one

Discussion[edit]

Hi @IM3847:. Thanks for your proposal. Do you also have a location in mind where the "Thank" button can be moved to instead? -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have seen many complaints since notifications have been implemented from editors/users(?) who feel that notifications are used to harass them. BTW where can users find more about notifications and interact with the developers about them? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me[reply]

I missed this the first time a looked at the proposals. I use a script to add thank links to my watchlist and I place it next to the diff links (cur | prev | thanks ). Though after thinking it through I can see the reasoning for the placement after the edit summary, it works against my workflow (reading diff with popups, thanking the edit). Chico Venancio (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Make it easy to switch articles on the main page

  • Problem: When editing the main page and insert a new article, you must to change title, a small description, and a image: that are 3 steps. It would be easier to do it in one step.
  • Who would benefit: All projects, and especially Wikinews + Wikipedia
  • Proposed solution: Introduce a general system for all Wikiprojects like French Wikinews have: link, to switch articles on the main page in 1 step instead of 3 steps.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

@Livenws: Could you clarify a bit more exactly what you have in mind here? Like are you envisioning a tool that would generate the needed Main page wikitext for a new featured article? Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't see a fundamental issue with this, it doesn't seem like it's got a very high benefit-cost ratio for Comm Tech. --Izno (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kaldari Like the French system, just 1 click to publish a new article on the main page without adding image, or short description manually. The system does that automatically. Livenws (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the French system depends on the specific templates that are in use on French Wikinews. Since every wiki uses a different layout and templates for their Main page, I'm not sure how we could build a system that would work across different wikis. Kaldari (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have something like this on the Romanian Wikipedia, based on a Lua module and a list of articles, which parses the introduction (section 0) of an article to leave only the text with no templates. I've noticed that the TextExtracts extension does exactly that, offering some tweaks and knobs, except the output is either text or HTML. I've logged phab:T166149 for this task, but with little luck. Perhaps this proposal can take over that approach.--Strainu (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be useful for words of the day at Wiktionary on the main page, currently done by hand Ithink. Gryllida 00:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

VisualEditor Template Suggestion

  • Problem:

Some situations need templates like maintenance's ones, inserting special characters hard to have on a keyboard (e.g. non latine script or phonetic symbols) or structured content like Wiktionary (i.e. pages organizing through templates in section titles).

Time going, Wikitext editor have been improved by users to add templatelists for editing like Hebrew Wikipedia. Missing those customized shortcuts to call templates (or special characters) is a great lack now in the Visual Editor and the new wikitext editor.

There is already a way to define most used special characters on VE/NWE. That system should exist for templates, and should be customizable/overrided by user. Those elements have to be easier to create than is it now, and easy to access.

  • Who would benefit:
    • As a wiktionarian, I see how import this could be for Wiktionary. It may benefit to everyone by suggesting templates for the rigid structure of the content (like synonyms section) and templates such as register or geographical tags (template used at the beginning of a definition, useful to categorize).
    • As a wikipedian, I sometimes need to tag some articles with inline templates such as Citation Needed. Have a shortcut to access that template without searching for it would be very would help.
    • On Wikivoyage, Listing templates have to be easy to access, because they are heavily used.
    • Please add your concern if you have a different perspective on this matter!
  • Proposed solution: A customable list of templates/chracters to insert, defined at different levels. This list should appears in the dialog and permit classification and documentation for the templates suggested.
    • project-wide (crucial for Wiktionary, Wikivoyage)
    • at the level of a namespace (e.g. Wikipedia: typographic templates for articles ; Wiktionary: insert synonyms subsection in main page)
    • at the level of a project (e.g. mathematical content in Wikipedia)
    • for a user only (my favorite templates).
  • More comments:
    • Actually, in my opinion, template suggestion is a necessity to make the visual editor and the new wikitext editor (NWE) useful for Wiktionary. It will be helpful for advanced users who like to be efficient when they edit, but also great for newcomers who can't guess the right name for a needed template and may be driven to add more data than planed by the suggestions.

Discussion[edit]

This could be a nice feature for VE. As the VE is more heavily based on backend (many API queries) it may be possible to get a list of common templates relevant to the page based on statics (e.g dynamic suggestions, not a fixed list). Having said it, it is quite simple to add to VE menus button for adding very common templates - please see mw:VisualEditor/Gadgets#Real examples for gadgets/scripts that interact with VE (specifically VeDirectionMarkTool). eranroz (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting gadgets, but hard to customized. As I can't read Hebrew and have a partial understanding of the code, I am totally incapable of duplicate this. This proposal is to have a dedicated space to set up the menus at several levels, in a way to make VE more adapted to local necessities. Not by hacking it but nor by make it interpret more code, but only by selecting a list of link to display during the edit. I hope I made the proposal clearer. By the way, thanks to Trizek for the enhancement and clarifications in the writing. This idea emerge from discussions we had at the Wikiconvention francophone, so it's great to have him here Noé (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be done outside of the VE. For example, we could have a function bound to a keyboard shortcut that pops-up a little panel with a search field and a list of results, where the search is done on the entire template namespace based on partial matches to name and description tags, similar to how the command palette works in modern text editors. The inserted template could then have pre-defined jump points to required attributes, similar to how text snippets work - all in the basic editor. François Robere (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note complementary suggestion below for an infobox wizard. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Advanced diff algorithm and wikitext delimiter pseudosectioning for reducing edit conflicts

  • Problem: Edit conflicts remain a source of frustration for experienced and new editors alike, especially on articles where interest is high and editing is rapid.
  • Who would benefit: Editors of heavily edited articles.
  • Proposed solution: Employ a more sophisticated diff algorithm which is less likely to signal an edit conflict when two edits can be automatically merged.
  • More comments: Creating pseudo-sections from the beginning and ending of wikitext delimiters such as template transclusion braces is very likely to help with the existing algorithm designed to avoid edit conflicts across sections.
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

@James Salsman: Just to clarify, you're suggesting improving the algorithm for automatically merging edits (and avoiding manual merging), not allowing more granular editing of articles, right? In other words, your "pseudosections" are just a parsing strategy, not a user interface change. right? Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The edit submission diff algorithm merges changes to different sections (which don't change the number of sections) to avoid edit conflicts when multiple people edit the same page simultaneously. It's a great feature and has plenty of room for improvement in terms of avoiding edit conflicts when people edit the same section simultaneously. One of the ways to accomplish the general case is to use parsing features as input to the diff algorithm, but it's not strictly necessary to do it that way. It's not a UI change, just a more pleasant UX under the same UI. James Salsman (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

More table types

  • Problem: How to program different types of tables?
  • Who would benefit: Everybody who has not written a wikibook yet and is not a programmer!
  • Proposed solution: More graphical symbols to display table frames and arbitrary lines. Could Excel tables (copyright situation? trademarks?) also be taken over?
  • More comments: Although I am writing a wikibook thanks to 3 coautors and I have access to reference books on HTML-design and webdesign in my company, it's not easy for me to for example create tables only by wikisytax commands.

Discussion[edit]

Ich arbeite, eigentlich als gelernter Bürokaufmann, seit dem 06.10.2014 in einer Werkstatt im Bereich "Grafikdesign/Weblayout/Digitaldruck und Verpackung". Nach Rücksprache mit meinem Gruppenleiter vor gut 2 Jahren erklärte dieser, dass ich im Rahmen eines Weblayout-Projektes ruhig versuchen sollte, an diesem Wikibookprojekt teilzunehmen. Dank Fachbücher in meiner Firma (Werkstatt) und auch Unterstützung von Teilnehmern und Co-Autoren konnte ich nach und nach Korrekturen vornehmen und somit diese Änderungen in meinem Wikibook "Musterentwürfe zum gerichtlichen Mahnverfahren" umsetzen. Dennoch habe ich immer wieder einmal, eher Programmtechnische Schwierigkeiten, die entsprechenden Steuerbefehle optimal und vor allem ´verkürzt´anzuwenden. Auf der anderen Seite gestattet mir das Schreiben und Programmieren dieses Wikibooks, mich ein ´wenig´ mit der Programmierthematik in einem Editor auseinanderzusetzen.

Nach einer Weile finde ich Lösungen, die vielleicht nicht immer optimal sind, aber hier kann ich dann Hilfen in Anspruch nehmen.

@Raimund Barkam: Hi, mir ist unklar welche "grafischen Symbole", "Steuerbefehle" und "beliebige Linien" hier gewollt sind, und was genau "verschiedene Tabellenarten" sind. Konkrete Beispiele willkommen damit es moeglich ist zu verstehen was hier vorgeschlagen wird. Danke! Zudem gibt es auch den VisualEditor der das Erstellen von Tabellen vereinfachen sollte. / It's unclear to me which "graphical symbols", "command messages" or "custom lines in tables" are requested here, and what is meant by "different types of tables". Specific examples are welcome to allow understanding what is proposed here. Thanks! Furthermore, the VisualEditor exists which should make creating table easier. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Raimund Barkam: Waere es moeglich etwas mehr zu erlaeutern was hier konkret vorgeschlagen wird (siehe meine Fragen weiter oben), da dies momentan unklar ist? Sonst muesste dieser Vorschlag leider archiviert werden da er noch zu unklar ist. Danke im voraus! // Would it be possible to elaborate what's exactly proposed here (see my questions above), as this is currently unclear? Otherwise this proposal would get unfortunately archived. Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AKlapper: Hallo AKlapper, anhand meines Buchprojektes (Wikibook) mit dem Titel "Musterentwürfe zum gerichtlichen Mahnverfahren", kann ich Dir am Besten meine verschiedenen Tabellenarten als Programmbeispiele vorstellen.

Der Link hierzu lautet; https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Musterentwürfe_zum_gerichtlichen_Mahnverfahren. Ein Teilnehmer namens Hirnspuch gab mir bereits einen Programmierhinweis zu einer Tabellenart. Lt. Wikisyntaxsteuerung kann ich unter der teilweisen Verwendung von grafischen Elementen eine Tabelle mit entsprechend notwendigen Spalten- und Zeilenanzahlen erstellen, aber innerhalb der Tabelle habe ich Probleme aufeinanderfolgende Texte abwechselnd links- und rechtsbündig oder mittig zu platzieren. Da ich aber kein Programmierer bin tue ich mich hin und wieder schwer damit, Tabellen mit den vorhandenen Möglichkeiten zu erstellen. Dennoch mag ich Herausforderungen. Es wäre aber sehr hilfreich, wenn es neben einer Tabellenartprogrammierung durch Wikisyntaxsteuerbefehle noch weitere Tabellenprogrammierbefehle für Wikibooks geben könnte. (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2017

Isn't this basically the same as this one: Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Editing/Make it possible to format tables in VisualEditor in editing section? Maybe they should be merged together. --Dvorapa (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]; does this help? Teilweise? HLHJ (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Continue development of wikitext syntax highlighter (CodeMirror extension)

  • Problem: As a result of #6 wish in 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, the new wikitext syntaxt highlighter, aka CodeMirror extension, was introduced as beta feature. But the development is far from done. There is for example no support for RTL wikis yet and there is still a handful of bugs to solve.
  • Who would benefit: article editors, template editors
  • Proposed solution: Continue development. Add support for RTL wikis. Solve bugs (see Phabricator tickets below).
  • More comments: Article editors, template editors.

Discussion[edit]

Voting[edit]

ContentTranslation extension for others wikis

  • Problem: ContentTranslation is an extension currently used in Wikipedia that allows you to translate items in other languages more conveniently, it has the advantage of adapting the source templates and avoiding complicating the wiki-code. The problem is that this extension was only created for Wikipedia, it would be interesting if other projects such as Wikinews or Wikiquote could take advantage of this tool in order to facilitate the translation of content between the different languages of these wikis as it is done in Wikipedia.
  • Who would benefit: All users.
  • Proposed solution: Adapt ContentTranslation to the needs and characteristics of the rest of the projects with the objective that it can work optimally in them.
  • More comments: This would make it possible to take advantage of this extension in these projects and encourage the translation of articles in these projects. In addition, outside of this, I think that the automatic translator of the extension could also be improved since that would allow generating less workload to correct the words.
  • Phabricator tickets: None.

Discussion[edit]

CT is bugged. It helps, but you always need to clean up generated code manually. And many problems solved in VisualEditor long time ago still present in CT. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Support multiple diff variants

  • Problem: We currently have a side by side comparison for diffs, but this often makes it difficult for people to find small changes inside a sentence. For a long time many editors have been using wikEdDiff, navigation popups diff and other JS based inline diffs, to gain more insight into changes.
  • Who would benefit: Editors and curators
  • Proposed solution: Add a toggle to a diff, to switch from viewing the difference in split (current) mode, to viewing it in unified mode. We can even add a third button for visual diffs, when this becomes more widely available. Take inspiration from github. In the past often performance has been a blocker for alternate diff views. To counter this, only do the inline diff on the client side on demand, instead of the server side.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

Potentially related Phabricator tickets: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/?ids=156439,26617,146781,7072,15462#R --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A notice: there is a similar proposal in the section Reading, namely Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Reading#Simple_diff Simple diff. --Vachovec1 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related: T38902, T117279 --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Create discussion entry automatically from edit summary

  • Problem:

On editing an article, it seems to be a good idea to insert a remark on a questionable point in the edit summary – the effort to insert it on the discussion page is much greater. But experience shows, that very often no one comes the way to handle the problem. So the remark gets lost in the history.

  • Who would benefit:

Editors

  • Proposed solution:

Create a possibility to insert a discussion entry from a part of an edit summary automatically.

  • More comments:

Maybe the part could be the summary ending identified by an introducing string as for example "Discussion:". Disadvantage: Only experienced users would be aware of this possibility. A better implementation would be great, but it should not affect the simplicity of the editing page. So to add a new choice possibility as "Edit summary and discussion entry" seems to be bad.

  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

Why can't the user go to the dicussion page and create a topic? Is it because it's difficult or time-consuming? -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult, but it takes time and seems to be unnecessary, hoping that there are users, which have the article on their watchlist and can & will handle the problem. But experience in the German WP shows, that this hope is too optimistically in more than 50% of the cases. --Griot (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries tend to be lost in the background of the history page. Topics on the discussion page remain more visible for longer. This proposal could have the effect of diluting the talk page with clutter, or making potentially useful edit summaries more persistent, depending on how responsibly such a tool would be used. I suspect that the only way we will find out is by trying it out, and I think it would be worth trying if the effort required is not too much. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this will just dilute the quality of talk pages with dreck. That it takes some thought and consideration of context to make a talk-page entry is a feature, not a bug. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Infobox wizard

  • Problem: Les infobox sont des outils intéressants pour enrichir des articles ou en faire une synthèse facilement compréhensible/accessible. Cependant, il est nécessaire que le contributeur connaisse l'existence de l'infobox qui l'intéresse et de plus en connaisse la structure. Il devra donc par la suite, aller sur la page modèle de l'infobox, faire un copier-coller du code et la remplir. La pratique la plus courante reste le copier-coller depuis d'autres articles, ce qui pose encore un problème : si l'article original avait une veille version ou une version incomplète de l'infobox, cela se propagera aux autres articles.
Infoboxes are useful tools for enriching articles or making them easily comprehensible/accessible. However, it is necessary for the contributor to know the existence of the infobox that interests him/her and to know more about its structure. He will then have to go to the infobox template page, copy and paste the code and fill it in. The most common practice is still to copy and paste it from other articles, which still poses a problem: if the original article had a previous version or an incomplete version of the infobox, it will spread to other articles.
  • Who would benefit: Tous les contributeurs
All contributors
  • Proposed solution: Créer une fonction recherche disponible depuis la barre d'outil principale lors de la modification d'article. Cette recherche permettra de naviguer dans les infobox (Recherche par titre ou catégorie), puis de directement récupérer dans l'article la structure de l'infobox (dans sa dernière version).
Suggested solution: Create a search function available from the main toolbar when editing an article. This search will allow you to browse the infoboxes (search by title or category) and then directly retrieve the structure of the infobox (in its latest version) in the article.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

  • @Framawiki: Any chance I could solicit your help with translations? (If you don't have time, don't worry :) Using Google Translate, it sounds like Snerkl is having trouble with infoboxes being changed, but the articles that use them aren't updated to the new format. If a parameter is deprecated, for example, the template could check for the invalid parameter, and if present put the article in a maintenance category. From there, a bot can go through the category and fix the template issues. This is how we do it on English Wikipedia. Could you ask Snerkl if that would help? Also, could I get clarification on what the proposed solution is? Thanks so much :) Google Translate only goes but so far! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello MusikAnimal (WMF), here is a quick translation. I's probably not better than Google Translate, but more technically understandable I hope :)
    Infoboxes are useful tools for enriching articles or making them easily comprehensible/accessible. However, it is necessary for the contributor to know the existence of the infobox that interests him/her and to know more about its structure. He will then have to go to the infobox template page, copy and paste the code and fill it in. The most common practice is still to copy and paste it from other articles, which still poses a problem: if the original article had a previous version or an incomplete version of the infobox, it will spread to other articles.
    Suggested solution: Create a search function available from the main toolbar when editing an article. This search will allow you to browse the infoboxes (search by title or category) and then directly retrieve the structure of the infobox (in its latest version) in the article.
    On frwiki too template editors ask bot maintainers to change parameters of infoboxes. Here it seems to want to take the problem at the root for page creations. with a tool to directly add the right syntax. So it could match the visual editor. --Framawiki (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snerkl: (French) Sur Wikipédia en français, il est possible de demander (fr:wp:RBOT) des corrections des paramètres d'infobox ou d’autres modèles, mais ce n'est pas automatique. Peut-être que l'éditeur visuel (fr:aide:EV) correspond à ton désir d'avoir des infoboxes correctes à la création des pages ?
    (English) On Wikipedia in French, it is possible to request corrections of infobox parameters or other models, but this is not automatic. Maybe the visual editor corresponds to your desire to have correct infoboxes when creating pages? --Framawiki (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be better to make smarter infoboxes that figure out what they should represent given information on Wikidata. They would then contain parts given what data are available, and have rules to include or exclude parts as appropriate. — Jeblad 22:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Remind users to update TemplateData when template was edited

  • Problem:

If a template is edited, TemplateData can stay outdated without notice.

  • Who would benefit:

Afterall every VE user

  • Proposed solution:

Notify template editor, that he/she should also update TemplateData after editing, removing or adding parameters in template.

  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

T138219

Discussion[edit]

@Dvorapa: As written on Community Wishlist Survey 2017, please narrow your proposals down to three proposals. This is your 4th proposal, if I count correctly. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for me, done ✓ All of them are in scope of Czech community, maybe they will be adopted by somebody from Czech community soon. --Dvorapa (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Proposer that the documentation portion of templates needs major work in many instances. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me [reply]

This request doesn't seem great. At some point we will have MCR, which will obviate the need to go look at separate pages in most/many cases--instead, you'll see another editor for the TemplateData and will presumably update it at the same time as you make the template-proper-changing edit. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Dividing section name from edit summary

  • Problem: When you write an edit summary, then there are suggestions for your edit summary, which contain many edit summaries you have written in your last edits. But when you edit only for example the section "2012" and want to write "link fix" into the summary, then there are suggested all the summaries, you wrote "link fix" in the last times and that contain "2012" in their section name. So for example "/*2012–2014/* link fix". This is really unnecessary, because I always have edited the section "2012" and never "2012–2014", when I would write this edit summary. And also when I have already written a hundred times "link fix" in the edit summary, but never in a section called "2012", then there are no suggestions for this one.
  • Who would benefit: Uhm... everyone using edit summaries.
  • Proposed solution: The edit summary suggestions should not include the section name, but only the real summary. When I write "link f" then I should get exactly one suggestion for "link fix", where it does not matter in which sections I have written this summary in the past.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

Can't you just triple-click the default summary before starting typing (or select it all other way) so that you overwrite it? In your case it probably does not matter which section you have fixed the link in indeed, while there are cases where it is important (for example if one is voting in an RfX page) --Base (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't that a suggestion by your browser instead of the wiki-software? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to remove the section title because it or your comment is long and you don't have enough space, for example. Moving the section title out of the edit box would make that impossible. (Although with the new increased comment field length that might be less of a concern.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny McFly: Ping in case you didn't see the comment above, and in case you want to refine/improve the wording in the Proposal above before the voting begins next week. (You might want to include the keywords "form-history" and "autocomplete") Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It seems, that it is really just a browser's thing. In this case I withdraw this wish. Thanks to User:Sänger. --Kenny McFly (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny McFly, the suggestions are done by the browser, but having bits of default summary is by MediaWiki. Knowing that there is the pretty much standard completion suggestion in all browsers, it is up to MediaWiki coders (and users here) to define if it is more useful than not to have a default summary. To me the default summary is much more of a nuisance than useful. First, for the reason you mention, as it breaks the browser's suggestions. Second, the section is often useless, the best way to check a new edit is to use a diff, which should show the section for context, not to visually scan a section. I understand opinions may vary a lot on the weights for these reasons, so I think this is a clear case for an *option* (defaulting to the current behaviour would probably be the best) - Nabla (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Nested templates in template parameters in VE

  • Problem: In VE there is no chance to add nested template into template parameter without knowing wikitext.
  • Who would benefit: Users working with templates composed of more parts nested into the main one.
  • Proposed solution: Add some possibility to achieve this.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T52355
  • Proposer: Dvorapa (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Dvorapa: As written on Community Wishlist Survey 2017, please narrow your proposals down to three proposals. This is your 5th proposal, if I count correctly. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for me, done ✓ All of them are in scope of Czech community, maybe they will be adopted by somebody from Czech community soon. --Dvorapa (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Editing&oldid=23947716"