Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Editing

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Editing
39 proposals, 552 contributors, 1287 support votes
The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)



Unbreak selection in the wikitext editor

  • Problem: In the new Wikitext editor, selected text doesn't work with Navigation Popups, so that I can't tell whether a link I just inserted is to the right thing just by selecting it and reading the popup, and when I want to copy and paste text, I can't just select the text and use middle-button paste on Linux: the selected text somehow doesn't get into the primary selection.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Navigation Popups who use the new wikitext editor
  • Proposed solution: I'm not sure what is causing this, so I'm not sure how to fix it.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Slashme (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

MusikAnimal (WMF) it's not just about the navigation popups issue: it's also that somehow selected text isn't being seen as selected by the operating system, so that I can't just select text and then middle-button paste it. It would be nice to know whether that's a bug, a feature, or an inevitable side effect of the toolbar. --Slashme (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand what the proposer is describing, but it really is remarkably problematic not to be able to move text around easily. Selection breaking is why I rarely use the Syntax Highlighter; it breaks the middle-click selection pasting in the editing pane. HLHJ (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting

Round brackets

Deutsche: Runde Klammern

  • Problem: Sometimes it takes a long time to put the corresponding words or sections in brackets in long lists. Would be nice if there was a tool to speed up this process.
Deutsche: Manchmal dauert es sehr lange bei langen Listen die ensprechenden Wörter oder Abschnitte in Klammern zu setzen. Wäre schön, wenn es ein Werkzeug geben würde, mit dem man diesen Vorgang beschleunigen könnte.
  • Who would benefit: People who work with brackets a lot.
Deutsche: Leute, die häufig mit Klammern arbeiten.
  • Proposed solution: Similar to curly brackets, link brackets or wikilinks, but just round.
Deutsche: Ähnlich wie Geschweifte Klammern, Linkklammern oder Wikilinks nur halt eben rund.

Discussion

Voting

Allow the usage of talk page specific markup inside the visual editor

  • Problem: Some functionalities that are often used in talk pages are either not present in the visual editor or disabled outside of talk pages and due to that, every article where someone may use either of those features need the wikitext editor. Besides that, regular articles could benefit from more structured listing options and signatures.
  • Who would benefit: Bloggers who use signatures to state when each blog post was created with ~~~. People who wish to have more options for structured lists since currently only "*" (dotted) and "#" (numbered) structured lists are available.
  • Proposed solution: Per the title, create options for ":" and ";" inside the bullet list menu, make it possible to enable signatures on regular articles and enable different signatures such as date only or signature only.
  • More comments: What's above is more important, but I wish it was easier to look for media files with dubious filenames (E.G: 1234567890.jpg) because inputting into the search bar the file name gives a lot of PDF files from commons as a result, but the file in question is nowhere to be found.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T39938 Support for creating and editing definition-lists in VisualEditor
  • Proposer: MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

  • @MarioSuperstar77: I kind of agree with this, and support it a little bit. Keep it up, and stay safe! MemeGod27
  • Regarding the signature bit, that's already configurable on a wiki level. The $wgExtraSignatureNamespaces config controls what namespaces the signature tool shows up on. Depending on the exact use-case, picking some more namespaces to have it enabled on by default could work (assuming community agreement)... or, more involved, providing some way for a user to override that setting. Choosing the type of signature is a little fiddlier from a visual stance, but we could maybe keep the current "turn it into a preview when you enter the ~~~~" behavior and a single signature menu-item, and then have some options on the signature-preview node that'd let the user toggle the type. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It could be used a hidden template for this Template:TalkVE or another of the proposed solutions.--BoldLuis (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting

Allow text and table colour to be featured on the visual editor to change

  • Problem: There isn't an option to change the colour of the text or table
  • Who would benefit : Editors who can do tables in one go and people who make user pages
  • Proposed solution : Adding the colour option for text and tables for English Wikipedia, using the colour chooser; with the most common colours, consider that it can just be picked off a preset option.
  • More comments: If there is an option to make text bigger, why can't we have the option to change colour?
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Beetricks (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Voting

VE makes partially linked words and adds unnecessary tags to the wikitext

  • Problem: By creating or changing links in VE (=Visual Editor), it often results unlinked word parts. It is language-dependent, but in some languages using unlinked suffix is never correct. Beside of the incorrect appearance, for example [[word]]s becomes [[word]]<nowiki/>s in the wikicode, and the unnecessary <nowiki/> tag just litter the wikitext and makes it unreadable in more complex situations.
  • Who would benefit: both readers and editors
  • Proposed solution: avoid adding <nowiki /> after links (on wikis, where this is required) (We could use a bot which frequently delete all the <nowiki/> syntax from the wikicode, but that increases the edit number (server traffic) and the length of the page histories. Why don't we just solve the problem rather than always making a mistake and then correct it in a second edit.)
  • More comments: this looks an easy to solve problem to me, but there is no real progress since 2015/16. If some language communities asks for having this behavior default, offer an option to be able to choose per wiki base. On the Hungarian Wikipedia VE has a bad reputation because of this kind of (long-time not solved) bugs and many editors think that we should not use VE at all until it generates clear mistake into the wikitext.
  • Phabricator tickets: T128060
  • Proposer: Samat (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

I see a use case of this feature, specially in languages which combines words together. For example maybe somebody would link wishlist so, that only the wish or list is linked, because there will never be an article about wishlist. Wishlist is easier, but for wishlist VE should still offer a possible way to create I believe. Samat (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting

Predictive edit summaries based on changes to article text

  • Problem: Some edit summaries take longer to write than the edits themselves. Editors write edit summaries in jargony shorthand unfriendly to new editors ("r/re" for reply, "ce" for copyedit, if there is an edit summary at all).
  • Who would benefit: Page history readers and new editors
  • Proposed solution: Identify common types of edits and either offer or default to suggested edit summaries for simple edits: replies (new, indented comments), minor copyedits (a few characters tweaked), resolving an error, adding/removing X parameter in Y citation, all things a computer can identify.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: czar 01:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Voting

Request to amend the preview of the "NoteTag" template (请求修正“NoteTag”模板的预览)

  • Problem:{{NoteTag}} is widely used to add notes in articles. But there is a unfixed bug: this template will show a blue subscript (styled as [note 1] or [a] [b]), but the pop-up preview shows an icon of reference (an icon of book and text "Reference"). Footnote does not equal to reference. They are two different concepts, so the display must be made reasonable.
  • Who would benefit: All wikipedia users
  • Proposed solution: Remove the icon of "Reference", or develop another pop-up window to separate explain-notes and ref-notes.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: 蕭漫 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Translator: Steven Sun (talk)

Discussion

Voting

Warn when linking to disambiguation pages

  • Problem: Between 500 and 800 links are added to disambiguation pages each day. This means readers are less likely to get directly to a relevant article when they click on a link and instead are shown a list of possible matches for the term. A recent en RFC to en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make links to disambiguation pages orange by default suggested coming to the community wishlist.
  • Who would benefit: Readers - in helping them get to the relevant article and editors in not having to fix bad links.
  • Proposed solution: A warning message appearng on preview or publish when adding a link to a dab page asking whether the editor really wanted to do this.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T97063
  • Proposer: Rodw (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Sure, but if you know enough to install a userscript like that, you're probably already checking for accidental dabs. A warning to newer users along the lines of "are you sure you wanted to link to this page" seems like a good idea IMO, as long as there were an easy way to resolve it (i.e. pop up options linked from the dab page). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.mw-disambig { background-color:#AFEEEE; }
.mw-redirect { background-color:wheat; }

Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it's available on all Wikis, it only has to be implemented by the local communities. So there is nothing to do here for the devs, it's an existing gadget. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ruwiki solution:
    ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-disambiguationLinks.css
    ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-disambiguationLinks.js Carn (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment I supported this, but only on the assumption that implementation will focus on solving the problem in a modern and user-friendly manner, and not merely implement the disruptive workflow currently hinted at in the comments. I think it'd be a lot simpler and better for everyone if we focus on the act of writing itself. In the visual editor, we can prompt users contextually right as they are creating or inspecting a link, and suggest one of the destinations from the disambiguation page instead, at which point we can have a list of suggestions right there. A similar thing could be done in the 2017 wikitext editor, and even in the 2010 editor when using the dialog to create a link. I don't think this is important enough to distract readers with, nor to inject a primitive warning forcibly into the save workflow. Doing so would, I think, drain considerable amounts of energy and will power from contributors to still continue with their edit, and much more to actually rediscover and address the issue itself. That sounds more like abuse mitigation, and less like contributor education. --Krinkle (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting

Edit 'macros'

  • Problem: I observe this on en.wikipedia, but it is likely everywhere. On en.wikipedia certain mainspace tags get a date. So if one adds {{fact}}, a bot follows up and changes it in {{fact|date=November 2019}}. That results in a second edit, sometimes conflicting with your follow-up edit.
  • Who would benefit: globally
  • Proposed solution: I suggest to write create the possibility to have 'macros', that result in pre-safe modification of the addition of {{fact}} and automatically adds the |date={{{CURRENTMONTH}}} {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}
    Obviously, it needs to be namespace-limited, and probably be handled by a protected page so that you don't get the vandal-addition of abusive macros. And one could consider to have a pre-save check there as well ('Wikipedia executed the following macro(s) on your written text: <list of macros>. Please [accept] or [reject] the changes made by the macro(s).', upon which the page is really saved).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Voting

Allow past edits to be filtered by size

  • Problem: Records of edits, whether in page history, recent changes patrol or user edit history are often crowded by relatively insignificant minor edits, making it difficult to find edits that have made more substantial changes and therefore require greater scrutiny.
  • Who would benefit: Editors interested in reviewing major changes to Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: Enable records of edits to be filtered by the size of the change (by specific number characters added or removed).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Voting

Make insertable markup customizable

  • Problem: List of markups to insert (insertable wiki markup) is currently limited too much
Currently, there are 36 predefined markups (insertable wiki markup) at the bottom of the page (in the 2010 editor), and you only need to click on one of these to insert it in the article (examples from Wikipedia in French: [[Catégorie:]] [[Fichier:]] [[Media:]] [[Spécial:Diff/]] [[Spécial:Contribs/]] #REDIRECTION [[]] · [[commons:|]] [[m:|]] [[n:|]] [[q:|]] [[s:|]] [[b:|]] [[wikt:|]] [[v:|]] [[d:|]] · <></> <code></code> <math></math> <small></small> <u></u> <ref></ref> <ref name=""></ref> {{Références}} <noinclude>, etc.
For example, I would like to be able to insert with one click the following code, which I would have customized myself, which takes a very long time to write in manual mode:
<ref>{{Ouvrage|auteur=|titre=|année=|éditeur=|tome=|page=|pages totales=|lire en ligne=|consulté le=}}</ref>
  • Who would benefit: Everyone
  • Proposed solution: It would be extremely useful to allow each user to create predefined markups (insertable wiki markup) and make them available in the already existing list in order to be able to insert them with a single click. It would be super fast!
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tubamirum (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC) (French Wiki)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Sorry, my bad. I support this if you mean something like "own charinsert" Patsagorn Y. (Talk) 01:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tubamirum: I've written such script for Ukrainian wikipedia (uk:MediaWiki:Gadget-ImprovedEditTools.js), it has edit dialog and serializes your insertions to this format: uk:User:AS/AStools.js. The only drawback is that it has to use your subpage as data storage, because Mediawiki devs can't add local metadata for years. I think it would make sense to have native solution with proper backend storage and plugins support. AS (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AS: your tool is very intresting. Another option could be saving them on the device via mw.store ValeJappo【〒】 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah, localStorage is not persistent enough for some use cases. AS (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and Tool for easy user buttons should probably be merged. They're essentially same task, the difference is only which controls on page you want to bind with your insertion functions. AS (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tubamirum: Try Using AutoHotKey macros to make typing – and life – easier (other, similar, tools are available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is basically the same as "Tool for easy user buttons" (below), just without the button. Both are fine. Either one needs to happen yesterday. Don't particularly care which. --Joalbertine (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting

Allow editors to write an edit summary from the edit preview

  • Problem: After making an edit, I view a preview of the newly edited page before I describe what I've changed. Then, in the preview, there is no place to describe what I've changed before publishing unless I go back, which is a bit clumsy.
  • Who would benefit: Page editors and trackers of changes
  • Proposed solution: Add a "Describe what you changed" text box to the top of the preview edit page next to "Publish changes" so that is is easily visible and easily accessed.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: BenJenkins (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

This would be useful, I like the idea. I've been keeping notes in a separate editor. A little notebook could even be there while we're editing: done with a chapter, enter changes, continue to the next one. Ponor (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd even go one further: With the addition of this functionality, it would then become desirable if we could choose an alternative workflow: Preview First, Preview Always. (Perhaps selected via an editing preferences checkbox, like "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" or our old, departed friend "Mark all edits minor by default".)
With the option enabled, an edit could progress from the editor interface, directly to Preview (including edit-summary field), and finally submitting the edit directly from the Preview view — never even seeing the redundant, unnecessary "Save your changes" popup.
We're always reminding our fellow editors "WP:TWWPK", and admonishing new Wikipedians whose edits are reverted that they need to Use The Preview™[, Luke?] (There's even a dedicated user warning template for that exact purpose.) The ultimate adherence to that philosophy would be (optionally) telling the system that you want to always preview every edit, automatically, before the option to submit is even presented. -- FeRDNYC 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Preview first is already an option though.... --Izno (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Izno: How so? "Show preview on first edit" is still a checkbox in the Editing preferences, but as far as I can tell it does nothing for either of the Visual Editor's modes. (Visual editing mode doesn't have a Preview at all, only Review, so I guess it's not really relevant to any of this.) But in the wikitext mode, even with the preference switched on "Publish changes..." still takes you to the "Save your changes" popup, and you have to manually hit "Show preview" to preview the edit. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you don't need a preview in VE. But okay, the context for your comment is good since it wasn't clear you were talking about 2017 WTE. :) --Izno (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]