User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF) Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

I think you are interested in visual editor. If so, is it true that ve does not work in user space?

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Ottawahitech. I replied there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Whatamidoing (WMF),

You have probably already seen it, but just in case. I happened to see an old discussion at: WD so thought I would bring it to your attention. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I wonder why they never (apparently) created the page they were discussing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been using the replyto tool on several wikis, and it works well in most cases. However, just now I am trying to use it on outreach-wiki to repond to someone who pinged me to a discussion, and maddenly a post I worked on for quite a while will not post, insisting I am not logged in, even though the preview clearly shows that I am logged in (by showing my signature). I even tried discarding my post and stating over again (after copy & pasting my post), but still no go. I hope it is OK to post this here. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

problem solved - sorry to bother. 71.197.249.55 07:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just here to report I have been using the reply tool on Wikiquote, and am very happy with it, especially with the addition of an edit summary line at the bottom (not installed at w-voyage yet), I guess. The only problems I have encountered with it so far, is in a couple of instances where I got into an edit conflict. The last time this happened I was able to simply reload my box of text, but had to completely redo my edit summary, which did not render very well.

I hope others will start using it more frequently, as the indentation and signing of posts is atrocious on some boards there when users try not do it the oldfashioned-wki-way.

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ottawahitech, is this problem with the edit conflict losing your edit summary fixed now? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Whatamidoing (WMF),

I reported a new problem on your talk at the English Wikiquote. I wonder if you could look at it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Whatamidoing (WMF)

I just noticed a notification i recieved on this wiki:

Cngratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library. Cick here...

I thought it would be handy, but since I am blocked on enwiki, I was curious to see how I could get access. So I clicked and, no surprise, saw:

Meet these criteria for automatic access... No active blocks

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that you have to be blocked on two wikis for it to matter. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

When the wikitext → HTML convertion is rebuild, would it be a good time to change the interpretation of rows of colons? They are now converted to <dl> and <dd>, which makes little sense. Is there nothing in HTML that could be used for the posts? –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I understand that it was discussed, but no change is being made. : and ; are wikitext for definition lists (aka association lists). We're supposed to use that mark up for glossaries.

AFAICT HTML doesn't have a "semantically meaningless visual indentation" code, which is what we want on talk pages. (Or, you know, proper forum software. Imagine a world in which a vandal couldn't easily insert the word not in the middle of your comment, or sign your name to something that you didn't write...) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

:-)

The indentation is indeed not semantically meaningless; it is used for a reason. But yes, HTML may lack the structure.

For "real forum software". That could perhaps be nice, but looking at the working of most web forums, I rather fear what WMF might one day come up with. Oh, how I miss Usenet. At the WMF sites, with many eyes on recent changes and important discussions on many watchlists, the "not" will not stay for long. I think the simplicity of wikitext discussions is a feature: you don't have to learn a second system to participate in the discussions, and the system doesn't dictate what you can do (such as changing the signature to that of your in-this-context-relevant other account).

–LPfi (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I rarely encounter anyone who sincerely misses Usenet. I am now very curious what about it you miss.

We like to say that many eyes make all bugs shallow, and yet I've personally dealt with very old vandalism and hoaxes in high-traffic articles, and, on the large wikis, there are many talk page contents that are never looked at. At a wiki like the English Wikivoyage, it's possible for someone to review every edit made in the course of a single day. At the English Wikipedia, we review some types of edits dozens of times (e.g., many edits made by logged-out editors), and others not at all. For example, w:en:Talk:Entrance examination was edited a few days ago, and there have been zero page views since then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there may indeed be such cases. On Wikipedia in Swedish (in the top dozen, I think), from where I have most of my experience, we have one user who says he each day checks every non-patrolled edit. That's quite unusual of course (and if he stops I don't think anybody will take over), and even then some edits may be missed, perhaps by being patrolled by somebody who missed a hoax.

For Usenet: The format allowed posts of a few paragraphs to be easily read, and interesting well-written ones could be a page or two, instead of the mostly just one paragraph posts at most forums. From the thread view it was easy to see which threads had real discussions, which had post by regulars you liked, and which were dead ends or yes-no fights (what do you call those of children?). I miss being able to quickly choose which posts in a thread to read (one out of ten?) and having readable post long enough to really discuss a point. (The format is not suited for the WMF sites though, where you mostly read every post in the relevant threads.)

–LPfi (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the Swedish Wikipedia is the 19th most active Wikipedia, as measured by the number of editors this month. It is 14th by the number of all-time edits. It terms of how often articles are updated – which is probably the metric most relevant for patrolling RecentChanges – it is rather lower. The English Wikivoyage has 25% the number of active editors and less than a tenth the number of edits, but I think we tend to collaborate more.

Children have "tis/tisn't" fights. It's rather old-fashioned language, so I don't imagine that any actual children say that any longer.

I would like you to click on this link: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User_talk:Whatamidoing_(WMF)?dtenable=1 and tell me what you think of the things it adds. There's been a suggestion that the "topic container" (the bit under each ==Level 2== section heading) should have a pop-up list of all the people who have posted in that section. What do you think? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The summary line (which I suppose is what it adds) is unintrusive and might be very useful on some pages, although I think here on Wikivoyage discussions tend to fall into a few categories, easy to distinguish without the summary line. –LPfi (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It also adds a note at the top about when the most recent comment was, and a few formatting details. I think it will be helpful on certain kinds of discussions, mostly longer ones. Being able to see at a glance that "it's just those two, again" might have some disadvantages, but I think that most it will mostly be helpful or neutral. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"It's those two again" would be my reaction also without that line. Better to have it up front. How reliable are the statements on number of participants and last comment? I get quite frustrated sometimes by seeing an edit (in my watchlist or RC) without comment, and not finding anything new at the end, at local indentation maxima, or even any recent timestamps. Get the diff. Ah, they decided to change some formatting or wording in an old post – please use edit summaries and the minor edit checkbox. What does the tool do about such things? Does it use section headings as they appear in history (by the visual editor you can edit a different section than the one you clicked on), diffs, signatures and timestamps, or something else? –LPfi (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The counts are based on detectable signatures+time stamps. It counts the number of comments/editors visible on the rendered page. It pays no attention to the number of edits, what the section heading says, or any other part of the process that it took to achieve those comments. In fact, if you copy and paste comments from another page into this section, it will treat those comments exactly the same as if they had been written here. Consequently, a discussion that was swept in from the Pub will be treated exactly the same as a discussion that happened locally.

Right now, this section says:

Latest comment: 3 days ago | 9 comments | 2 people in discussion

After I post this comment, it will update to today's date and 10 comments. It re-counts all the discussions on the page after each edit is made. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. Sounds sensible and robust (not trying to do more than it can). –LPfi (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Whatamidoing (WMF), I have tried reaching you at my (current) homewiki with no success. Are you still around? I see you have not contributed here since last spring.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@User:WhatamIdoing Ottawahitech (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply