Jump to content

Talk:Community Liaisons/Media Viewer consultation/Other

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This page contains proposals or comments that do not directly relate to discussing how Media Viewer can be improved, or about the prototype presented for discussion.
Discussions moved to this page do not have to end, they are simply not on-topic for the main discussion page.

The wiki-markup detector sometimes mis-detects[edit]

  • Problem: The wiki-markup detector sometimes finds wiki-markup which isn't there making it impossible to save (w/o going through source which is just time wasting).
  • Proposed solution: Remove the banner in the top-right corner if wiki-markup is detected. The replacement should be a warning before you save where you can choose to continue or not. NickGibson3900 (talk)

Discussion[edit]

NickGibson3900, are you talking about VisualEditor? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Elitre (WMF) *facepalm*, where should I request changes for the VisualEditor? NickGibson3900 (talk)
NickGibson3900: don't worry. I'll take care of your request and will ping you from the appropriate page. I'll archive this section in a while though to avoid confusing people. Thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Helping the users frame this discussion in a constructive way[edit]

I've noticed that on pretty much every single page that mentions Mediaviewer there seems to be hate creep that comes into the discussions. They get really side-tracked by the editors who want nothing to do with Mediaviewer and just want to see it gone. This seems to happen in every discussion and its frustrating and somewhat depressing. It make the constructive discussions really hard to follow. I wonder if it might be worth it to place some sort of prominent notice on the page asking people to please refrain from the hate-mongering. I'm not really sure the best way to go about this yet, but I plan to think on it today. Maybe I'll have a more specific suggestion in 12 hours. Any ideas? Zellfaze (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

unsigned comments here[edit]

  • Problem: Comments here aren’t signed for new problem threads.

Discussion (unsigned comments here)[edit]

It was recently done. Hopefully that's enough. Thanks for your note! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps better with <onlyinclude>~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~</onlyinclude> (or something like that), so that it will automatically be added behind the proposed solution. Just a comment isn’t helping much, as you can see above. --Winternacht (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
This does it now, as I’ve tested. So it’s fixed. --Winternacht (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Do we want to add a colon or an asterisk before the signature? Just so that it stays aligned with the rest of the message. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just an asterisk doesn’t look very well. Perhaps "* Proposal of" before the signature would do it. --Winternacht (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It’s also very irritating, when you save an edit here in the discussion section, and then after saving you don’t get back here, but always get to the first #Discussion section above. There shouldn’t be always the same section title "discussion" for every proposal, but better as in the first sections above, see #Discussion (disabled right click) and following discussion sections. Can the problem title of each section be placed behind the title "Discussion" in brackets automatically? --Winternacht (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don’t know, how to do this, I’ve tried it this way, until anyone has an idea how to put the name of the problem there instead of the date and time of the proposal. --Winternacht (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry. I hope one of my colleagues might be able soon to help with this. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I’ve fixed some titles above now. --Winternacht (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you or your colleagues also add the missing signatures for the rest of the proposals? And: What has this IP proposal for removing exclusionist admins to do with the MediaViewer? I’m considering that as just trolling. --Winternacht (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Isn't there a bot to do such menial tasks?
And yes, that's mere trolling. S/He's miffed by the German admins, that are in fact really far too exclusionist, and likes this bling-thing MV, especially because it's disliked by most admins. --Sänger S.G (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No signatures at #Don't reinvent the wheel, #Stop this circus, #Use the feedback you already have, maybe at #Only use it on full machine readable media files (don’t know), #Show the category of the pictures which are currently viewed (also not sure, if the first discussion edit also is the proposer), #Spin-off outside Wikimedia, #Make the viewer content better, #Add an optional description panel side-by-side for images like technical drawings or maps, #Reliability. I think that was it. I don’t like to dig into the version history, it’s no my MediaViewer (should better be opt-in because of community votings anyway until they should decide otherwise – and that can’t be said often enough, it seems). --Winternacht (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Winternacht, thanks, I signed the ones that had no discussion that made it clear who posted the discussion. Archiving this shortly. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that. Is it also possible (before archiving this thread), as Elitre above wrote, that you change the discussion headers in Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Media Viewer/suggestions in that way, that they automatically take the title of the new sections in brackets instead of date and time, as it is now? I think that would be clearer in the TOC, or don’t you think so? --Winternacht (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Winternacht: I don't believe it's possible to do that, with the simple <inputbox> that we're using to create the standard section layout. However, instead of the timestamp, I'll just replace that string with "title", and hope that the editors replace it themselves (and if they don't, it's easy enough for us to fix the headings over the time).
We could also use a {{TOClimit}} template here, to reduce the size and redundancy... Any objections? Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
That’s a good idea, it looks better now with the limited TOC. I think that it is possible also with the title directly, but that might be too complicated here. The problem with "YourTitle" is that the editor has to see that he or she should change that title (not always the case). But if you are doing so instead, then that’s a possibility. --Winternacht (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Easy Access to Visual Editor[edit]

  • Problem: For new users, they don't know about the wiki-codes, a visual editor could help them to edit visually, but there are no buttons on the top right to click on for the visual editor.
  • Proposed solution: Add a "Visual Edit" tag on the top right corner of every article, next to the tag "Edit"

Discussion (Easy Access to Visual Editor:)[edit]

  • Hi ZYjacklin. Visual Editor is planned to be rolled out on Wikipedias first: mw:VisualEditor#Timeline. You can request that it appears in beta features, by local wiki consencus, granted that local wiki folks are ready to withstand the overheads it introduces -- as the software isn't specifically designed for file pages in any way, and newcomers would be likely to introduce mistakes in their edits. For instance, it has a button for adding inline references, which is useless at Commons. The text formatting buttons are also mostly useless. A dropdown with common tags and templates, on the other side, could be more useful. ... I in such case get community consencus on enabling it as an opt-in beta feature, then script it a little to suit project needs and then get community consencus on enabling it on opt-out basis.
The above goes to file: pages. Would you also like to see VisualEditor inside of Media Viewer? Where exactly? Thanks. --Gryllida 06:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
In addition to what Gryllida says, if you're interested in VE at zh.wikipedia (and possibly others), you can already enable it for your own use via the Beta Features option, although it should be noted that the experience right now might not be perfect until a better support for some languages is ready. Thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
i would suggest opt out for mobile and app. (if possible, separate from english desktop). Slowking4 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Must have" - a complete rework[edit]

  • Problem: Just about everything
  • Proposed solution: Start from scratch

Discussion ("Must have" - a complete rework)[edit]

I used this ever so briefly and for everything that was not basic text editing it was horrendous to use. Even editing text it was unclear in places due to templates - I would not wish this horrid implementation on anyone. JMJimmy (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This page is about the Media Viewer — the UI that appears when you click on an image, which allows you to flick through images on a page. This has nothing to do with editing. — Timwi (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply