„Wikipédia-vita:Válaszeszköz” változatai közötti eltérés

Az oldal más nyelven nem érhető el.
A Wikipédiából, a szabad enciklopédiából
Legutóbb hozzászólt Whatamidoing (WMF) 3 évvel ezelőtt a(z) Usefulness témában
Tartalom törölve Tartalom hozzáadva
37. sor: 37. sor:
:{{reply to|Whatamidoing (WMF)}} thank you! I will make a quick poll asking other editors about your question. (Accidently, I answered you with clicking the edit link instead of the reply link. We need some time become used to the new tool :)) [[User:Samat|Samat]] <sup>[[User vita:Samat|üzenetrögzítő]]</sup> 2020. július 20., 22:58 (CEST)
:{{reply to|Whatamidoing (WMF)}} thank you! I will make a quick poll asking other editors about your question. (Accidently, I answered you with clicking the edit link instead of the reply link. We need some time become used to the new tool :)) [[User:Samat|Samat]] <sup>[[User vita:Samat|üzenetrögzítő]]</sup> 2020. július 20., 22:58 (CEST)
:[https://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Kocsmafal_(javaslatok)&diff=prev&oldid=22880202&diffmode=source Quick poll]. The statistics are interesting, but I have the feeling, that the thresholds are too low. It shows, that there are about 50 editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia, who is interested in new beta features, and about 35 editors tried it at least twice (or with other words second time after the first one). I understand that the team would like to show higher percentages of the usage, but it would give a more realistic picture if we could see how many editors (for the beta phase, later how many percentage of the active editors) use it (for example) more than 50% on the discussion pages or how many editors opt out after tried it. It makes probably more sense to check these numbers after it will be the default tool and more editor use it. [[User:Samat|Samat]] <sup>[[User vita:Samat|üzenetrögzítő]]</sup> 2020. július 21., 22:58 (CEST)
:[https://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Kocsmafal_(javaslatok)&diff=prev&oldid=22880202&diffmode=source Quick poll]. The statistics are interesting, but I have the feeling, that the thresholds are too low. It shows, that there are about 50 editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia, who is interested in new beta features, and about 35 editors tried it at least twice (or with other words second time after the first one). I understand that the team would like to show higher percentages of the usage, but it would give a more realistic picture if we could see how many editors (for the beta phase, later how many percentage of the active editors) use it (for example) more than 50% on the discussion pages or how many editors opt out after tried it. It makes probably more sense to check these numbers after it will be the default tool and more editor use it. [[User:Samat|Samat]] <sup>[[User vita:Samat|üzenetrögzítő]]</sup> 2020. július 21., 22:58 (CEST)
::You can't use it for all talk page edits, so I'm not sure what the "correct" percentage is. I've used it at enwiki for about 50% of my talk-page and user-talk page edits, and I think I'm using it at every opportunity. So 50% might be the highest reasonable percentage (for a highly active editor). It will be lower if you spend a lot of time starting discussions, rather than joining an existing discussion. [[Szerkesztő:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] <sup>[[Szerkesztővita:Whatamidoing (WMF)|vita]]</sup> 2020. július 23., 22:07 (CEST)

A lap 2020. július 23., 21:07-kori változata

Commons

Ennek bizonyos funkcióit a Commons már évek óta tudja, például törlésre jelölésnél, copyviózásnál. Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz! 2020. május 26., 00:21 (CEST)Válasz

Hibajelzés

Akela vitalapján valamiért nem működik. Azt írja, hogy „Érvénytelen válasz a szervertől.” Kipróbáltam (mentés nélkül) más szerkesztők vitalapján is, ott nem volt hibajelzés. Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz! 2020. május 26., 00:38 (CEST)Válasz

@Hungarikusz Firkász: A jobboldalon fent található naptárral veszik össze – az okát nem tudom. Ha Akela kivenné onnan a naptárt, működne. --Pallertithe cave of Caerbannog 2020. május 26., 00:57 (CEST)Válasz
Holnap jelzem a problémát a fejlesztőknek, de most elmegyek aludni. Viszont elgondolkodtam, hogy nem jobb-e itt gyűjteni az észrevételeket, mint a másik, konzultációs lapon. Mivel a címke úgyis ide fogja irányítani az érdeklődőket, inkább ez a logikus hely. Samat üzenetrögzítő 2020. május 26., 01:01 (CEST)Válasz
Én a másik helyről nem tudtam, ezért írtam ide. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz! 2020. május 26., 01:10 (CEST)Válasz

Újabb észrevétel, hogy a WT-lapon sem tudtam használni. Ott ezt írta ki: „Erre a hozzászólásra nem lehet válaszolni ezzel az eszközzel. Próbáld a teljes lapot szerkeszteni.” – Nem tudom, hogy ez hiba-e, ezért neveztem észrevételnek. Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz! 2020. május 27., 13:40 (CEST)Válasz

Quick check

Is version 2.0 good enough? The devs ask us whether the visual mode is satisfactory. I think it is satisfactory, but your opinion is more important. We have this week to decide. If it is good, then next Monday (15 June) they will put it in the regular wikitech:deployment train, and "version 2.0" will be turned on next Thursday (18 June) for everyone who already has the Beta Feature enabled.

You can test it on this page with this link: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia-vita:Válaszeszköz?dtvisual=1 You might need to switch to the visual mode to see what's new.

So: Are there any significant problems? Is there anything you need, before the visual mode is available to you all the time, without having to type ?dtvisual=1 each time? (Please ping me, or "@ me" in the new visual mode.) Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) vita 2020. június 9., 02:23 (CEST)Válasz

Usefulness

Peter and I have been looking at the Reply tool's numbers, and here's what we see:

  • About 50 people used it at least once here at the Hungarian Wikipedia.
  • Most editors who used the Reply tool used it repeatedly. 73% used it more than once at huwiki.
  • Most people who used the Reply tool used it on multiple days. 68% used it on more than one day at huwiki. (This number includes editors who have only edited on one day so far, so we would never expect it to be 100%.)

From the "numbers" side, this looks like a tool that's fairly effective. From my own personal experience, I'm happy with it. What I want to know is whether you think this would be helpful overall to the huwiki community at this point, or if you'd rather wait longer. If you want it turned on for everyone, then I'll ask the team to do that. (Of course anyone could opt out in Special:Preferences, if they didn't want it.) If you don't, then I would like to know what else the team should do (if anything) to make it more appropriate for huwiki.

(Samat, Tacsipacsi, Pasztilla, anyone else: would you please make sure that editors know about my question, and translate this note if you think it would be helpful?) Whatamidoing (WMF) vita 2020. július 20., 21:59 (CEST)Válasz

@Whatamidoing (WMF): I like this feature and I think it would be good for newcomers as well. One minor bug I almost reported several times, but never actually, is that it sometimes conflicts with wikEdDiff (“Fejlettebb lapváltozat-összehasonlító” in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets), which is used by 76 active users, in addition to the 47 active users using wikEd itself. Can you look into it? Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi vita 2020. július 20., 22:37 (CEST)Válasz
Tacsipacsi, please tell me more about this. How do you trigger the bug? Whatamidoing (WMF) vita 2020. július 21., 03:01 (CEST)Válasz
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Just by clicking the usual [reply] button, if I’m unlucky. If I’m lucky, it works with the very same URL. wikEdDiff’s distinctive feature is (in addition to its own diff engine) that it turns the [[]] and {{}} codes in the normal MediaWiki diff into links. (I use wikEdDiff only, never the “large” wikEd, but I assume the same goes for both.) My best guess is that things go wrong when wikEdDiff loads faster than DT, so when DT parses the page, it finds well-formed signatures—including user page links and timestamps—in the diff view as well, not only in the actual page content, and gets confused by the same signature appearing twice; the [reply] link only works with the first occurrance (i.e. in the diff), clicking the second (the one in the actual page content) results in a warning message

Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page. Please reload the page and try again.

Tacsipacsi vita 2020. július 22., 00:25 (CEST)Válasz
@Whatamidoing (WMF): thank you! I will make a quick poll asking other editors about your question. (Accidently, I answered you with clicking the edit link instead of the reply link. We need some time become used to the new tool :)) Samat üzenetrögzítő 2020. július 20., 22:58 (CEST)Válasz
Quick poll. The statistics are interesting, but I have the feeling, that the thresholds are too low. It shows, that there are about 50 editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia, who is interested in new beta features, and about 35 editors tried it at least twice (or with other words second time after the first one). I understand that the team would like to show higher percentages of the usage, but it would give a more realistic picture if we could see how many editors (for the beta phase, later how many percentage of the active editors) use it (for example) more than 50% on the discussion pages or how many editors opt out after tried it. It makes probably more sense to check these numbers after it will be the default tool and more editor use it. Samat üzenetrögzítő 2020. július 21., 22:58 (CEST)Válasz
You can't use it for all talk page edits, so I'm not sure what the "correct" percentage is. I've used it at enwiki for about 50% of my talk-page and user-talk page edits, and I think I'm using it at every opportunity. So 50% might be the highest reasonable percentage (for a highly active editor). It will be lower if you spend a lot of time starting discussions, rather than joining an existing discussion. Whatamidoing (WMF) vita 2020. július 23., 22:07 (CEST)Válasz