Help talk:Notifications

To learn how notifications work, visit this FAQ page. To customize your notifications, check your preferences. After your first notifications, please take this quick survey.

Is this crosswiki?

For example, if someone edits my user talk page on Commons or Wikitionary or Farsi Wikipedia, will I still be able to see the notification if I happen to be on English Wikipedia? If not, is this a planned feature? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: not yet, but it's definitely planned. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be awesome for people who work on multiple sites (like me). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came here to look for this very thing. Awesome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was in the initial scope, and hopefully it'll be something we can fit in - even if it's something as simple as "something's changed on your watchlist on [wiki]" or such. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone, but it's more of the "you've got a message on [some other site]" notification that I'd want/need; I don't necessarily need watchlist notifications from, say, ptwiki or ko.wikisource. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha :). Worst-case scenario, I guess, would be to have Echo locally on each project and then have a global message that is triggered whenever any local echo message goes off on a non-"home" wiki, I guess. Does that make sense? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sounds good to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@EVula: Makes sense, watchlist notifications are not in Echo, but will be a problem for mw:Flow. I think Jorm's idea is that Flow-like events like watchlist changes would be more like a stream than discrete events to be served in Echo -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cross-wiki was taken out from the first Echo deployment because the projects would need to have global users first. When single-universal login is addressed by James and others, we can iterate Echo to serve cross-wiki notifications. (Note: cross-wiki will probably not show flyout content if you have cross-wiki notification, but instead you'd know the existence of an unread notification (on say meta) and the flyout would allow you to jump to that wiki -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement. (Also, found this mention of me due to Notifications; yay success.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming wrath

Misunderstanding

Aside from the regular amount of wrath that comes with any major change on Wikipedia, I think you guys are (IMO rightfully) going to get hammered by the notification settings defaulting to sending emails as opposed to not sending them. A lot of people turn talk page notification emails off, and are not going to be pleased when they get talk page notifications and other notifications by email. Just a heads up. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

headscratches* Sorry? For existing users, it's going to match whatever their talk page notification email setting is. Can you point me to something that claims different? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up on IRC. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only?

Page says Wikipedia only. Does this mean only English Wikipedia? All language Wikipedias? Are sister projects left out? --LauraHale (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia first, but it will go to all Wikipedias. I expect that the sister projects will get it as well in due course; mediawiki.org was actually the first production wiki to get it.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Launching on every project simultaneously seems the height of folly. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the watchlist notice. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page mentions, ANI and interaction bans

Wikipedia:Notifications says it will notify you of mentions on other talk pages. How is it decided which namespaces it scans for mentions? Is it just Talk: and User talk: or would this be customisable?

Currently, WP:ANI requires that users be notified about threads created about them. If they were notified automatically if they were linked, this would reduce the need to leave them a "Hey, you're at ANI" post. Which is particularly useful as there are users with interaction bans, and telling someone that there's an ANI thread about them is technically interacting.

(Also, we should probably work out whether the new notification system affects how interaction bans are handled.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Customisable, I believe :). And, yeah, ANI is actually the first use case I thought of! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be able to add alternate names it can check too? For example, people are likely to refer to me as simply "Crisco" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I'm afraid - but it requires formal linking to your userpage anyway, so it probably won't work out as "every time someone mentions Crisco" (which is good!). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a... small price to pay. Especially since I could probably turn that page off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. On the other hand Many people refer to me as "Worm", but I'd be a little worried if ever instance of someone typing "Worm" came up. One thing I'd be curious about is the criteria which would be used for notification, would the words "Worm That Turned" cause a notification or would it require a link to User:Worm That Turned? Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I edit conflicted... I was going to say "Never mind, my questions are answered at the place where I should have looked" Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this means I can't get all the hot gossip about me? I doubt those who are into throwing stones in glass houses will link names all the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it still notify Crisco if I linked his userpage like this? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably; you can go to MediaWiki.org and check! It's live there now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda technical question, It works with links to a user page, does it also parse templates that generate user page links (IE {{user}} et al )? Werieth (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! I'll try and find out :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How soon can we get the Wikipedia namespace turned on? I think it would be really helpful for those of us who participate in many different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on, Viriditas. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only for talk. Noticeboard discussions don't take place in talk. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It must be on because I received a user mention notification from a WP:RfA in the Wikipedia namespace. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the exact thread, please? Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other talk page mentions

Could a feature that allows a user to add other users to a list so they could be notified if mention is made of a user on their list be developed and incorporated? Would this be desirable to anyone other than me? My76Strat (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the potential for wikihounding is a bit too great. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking precisely! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

Can the newsletter be named "Notifications"? Then you could have "Notifications notifications", which would fit nicely with the name "Echo". ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1.--ragesoss (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+2 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+3 AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for reverts

I recently got the following notification:

Your edit on Talk:VisualEditor has been reverted by Jdforrester (WMF) (Show changes)
"Undo revision 676542 by Ypnypn (talk) - will reply there."
2 days ago

The words "Undo revision 676542 by Ypnypn (talk)" are totally unnecessary. There are probably similar problems with other notices. A link was provided if I really wanted to know the revision #. – Ypnypn (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this notice? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mediawiki.org --MZMcBride (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Undo revision" is part of the edit summary - it's not a feature of Echo, and probably not something we can easily remove, I'm afraid. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done (I've written and tested code that does it - Idc4e7989), however a lot of the time the user will add in things like colons and hyphens which don't mean anything once the default part of the summary is removed. E.g. you might do something like "Undo revision x by y (talk): spam" but removing the default part of the summary would leave ": spam" which I don't have any way of fixing (especially not in all possible languages). --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting ability to turn off all notifications

Can it be made possible to turn off all notifications? I'm already notified three times about edits to my talk page and, as an admin, I'm unlikely to have my user rights change without a great deal of notification. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised about the level of control you have over different notification types and how they're delivered. There isn't an "all off" switch, but you're going to have a lot of ability to have notifications delivered when and how you want them (or don't want them). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response, Steven. The FAQ seems to state that talk page & user rights notifications cannot be turned off: "Some notifications cannot be disabled, such as changes to your user rights or new talk page messages: these notifications are too important to be dismissed." -- is this inaccurate? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's accurate - but I'm confused as to how you're notified three times! I'm only aware of two mechanisms (email and The Orange Bar of Doom (tm)). So, Echo will replace the big orange bar, and email notifications if you already get those - it's not adding anything new. And, you can completely nix notifications by email for that kind of thing, too :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised it was replacing the Orange Bar of Doom & e-mail notifications, rather than augmenting them. (Three ways = watchlist, e-mail & OBoD.) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, gotcha :). Yep, it'll replace the both of them, but replacements will be like-for-like for each user. So, if you've got 'don't send me talkpage emails' as a setting, Echo will remember not to do the same. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to miss the OBOD, so more obvious than a little red box :-( NtheP (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we disable the notification for the user talk message? I'm obviously going to notice the orange message barn, and getting a notification and an orange bar is redundant. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, using #pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; } in my skin css file works on making it invisible. There is a resulting empty space though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change it from visibility: hidden; to display:none; and that empty space should go away, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is replacing the watchlist...

...will I have a handy place to view changes to specific pages that don't revert my edits? I'm still interested in the progress of a bunch of pages, not just in my own work there... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not replacing the watchlist :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I read "designed to augment (rather than replace) the watchlist" too fast. Thanks! *facepalm* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Just saying it sounds like a great improvement. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 10:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lova Falk, we're glad you find this tool useful. We hope the rest of you like it too. To learn more about how Notifications work, check out this FAQ and testing page. Enjoy ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You can leave us feedback from the 'All Notifications' Page. Vibhabamba (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which links them to this page. I think they'll be fine finding the talkpage from here ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to edits/contributions should also be noted

If an editor links to another editor's edits or contributions, this should also create a notification. This is a far more likely occurrence than linking to an editor's userpage in an actual wikilink. Many times on talk pages it will just be "Editor is inserting a POV into this article; look at this terrible edit." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm—I like this a lot, although I suppose the technical implementation would be a bit more painful. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very painful, yep :/. I think it's improbable, I'm afraid! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notices

Right now we get "notices" on Watchlist page. Will it be transferred to Notifications by echo? --Nizil (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nizil, thanks for your question. Right now, watchlist notifications will continue to be delivered in the same way as they are today. This new product focuses on a smaller set of important notifications that are more closely related to you as a user, such as page reviews, mentions of your name, or user right changes. We plan to integrate the watchlist in future products, to support this high volume feed separately from the more selective notification system we're releasing this week. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I know that watchlist will keep functioning as it is but my question is regarding Notices which flash at the top of Watchlist page like "Election of arbitation committee is going on! Vote and discuss here.. [dismiss]" or "New program system is being discussed here..[dismiss]". --Nizil (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nizil :). So, at the moment, the first release will not contain this - but I think the idea of system messages is very powerful, and it's something I'm personally strongly in favour of. We've discussed it within the team, and I'm hoping for a positive outcome :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. So it will be a future feature.. Anyway it will help a lot by seeking attention of users in matters related to policies and increase participation.. I strongly agree with you.. Thanks for Echo.. now waiting for Flow.. Both will help a lot and will save a lot of time and energy.. Cheers to you guys--Nizil (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hopeful future feature - obviously we can't promise it concretely. But I'm gonna push on it, certainly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. :) and yes I got Notification.. :D --Nizil (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Page link"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49094

I noticed in my notifications preferences that there is a page link notification that is disabled by default. What is the page link notification? It might also be a good idea to create tooltips in the preferences to explain them. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the FAQ. Is there any reason it only notifies me if a page is linked in an article? I feel like it would be a great benefit if I was notified if someone was discussing a page I created. Ryan Vesey 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be pretty hard to define, though. Links to pages in the talk-related namespaces? Which would invariably include a lot of automated wikiproject listing, and such. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryan Vesey, thanks for asking about the page link notification. This optional notification is sent when an article you created is linked from another article. Because this has the potential to be high volume, we disabled this notification by default for current users (but it is enabled for new users). If you decide to try it out, let us know how it works for you. In the meantime, here is the current requirement for this feature. Cheers :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryan -- some kind of information about what these options do (all of them) -- is important to have on the Preferences screen. As a quick fix, a simple link to the FAQ would probably be sufficient. Most users wouldn't have any idea how to learn more about this screen -- wouldn't know the name "Echo" to search on, for instance. -Pete (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pete. We agree with you. We already planned to add little question marks next to each notification type listed in preferences (Template:Bug), for the reasons you mention. But we were delayed in adding that feature, so it may not be available until next week. Hope that's OK ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think next week is soon enough. If this feature is about helping people be aware of what is going on, that principle needs to be applied to the feature itself -- as soon as possible, when people first encounter it. -Pete (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is nominal creator of a lot of articles, I think I'd personally be more in favour of notices for articles (not pages) on my watchlist. My watchlist serves as a list of articles I care about, which isn't something I can say for 2007 World Championship in Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting page link notifications for pages that I "created" because I moved a page with the redirect option set. I've moved lots of pages that I have no interest in, hence I'm getting lots of useless notifications.... Could you please investigate making it possible not to receive page link notifications for redirects created as the result of a page move. Thanks. — Scott • talk 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing by making a second account

As recommended on mw:Echo (Notifications)/Testing... surely this is OK for beta-testers, but not general advice we want everyone to follow?? Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For context: engineering often creates test accounts when launching new features, but we always try to tag them in the user name with something obvious like "WMFUserTest" or at least use of the "testing" keyword. In theory we have test.wikipedia.org, but it's practically of very limited use, and we always have to test what we're showing to new users in production. I'd recommend anyone who wants to make a test sock simply follow the rules for legitimate sockpuppets. An account like "rd232NotificationsTesting" which is appropriately tagged on the userpage can hardly be doing any harm. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely User:RVesey doesn't harm anything. Ryan Vesey 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey line in the way of the tabs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49926

Hello.

I have a grey line in the way of the tabs (article, talk, edit, and so on), and it partially obscures them. Doesn't the notifications function work properly with monobook appearance?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandsomeFella, I can't reproduce the gray line you mention in Monobook. Would you mind posting a bug ticket on Bugzilla and including a screenshot as an attachment? Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm having the same problem of HandsomeFella, and me too I use Monobook. For few seconds it apperas the "0" in that way : "DerBorg (0) Talk Preferences Watchlist Contributions Log out" ... After, the 0 is transformed in a long grey bar with a white 0 in the middle, and covers article, talk, edit, and so on. Thanks for attention. Regards. Today in the afternoon it wasn't. I've discovered it few minutes ago. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem about the "grey 0" was resolved, from this afternoon. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem + the watch tab is overlapping with the standard links and inaccessible.TMCk (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other tabs are barely accessible and unreadable. If I wouldn't know from memory...TMCk (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of you provide a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't, unfortunately, as I'm at work; but just~~ Just to confirm I am having the same issue. System spec: Windows XP, Internet Explorer 7, Monobook skin. It's causing quite a significant problem with the page layout. If it also applies on my home computer (IE10), I will upload a s/s when I get home tonight. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have managed to get a screenshot. See above. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more info: the same sequence of events happens to me as described by DerBorg above: the (0) appears briefly before turning into a long grey bar. When in the Edit window, as I am when typing this, I notice that the (0) stays in place and the layout is therefore correct. For info: I have some custom Javascript in my Monobook.js (User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css) which turns wikilinks different colours according to various circumstances (e.g. pink for AfD, green for redirects, purple for Stub articles etc.); the change from (0) to the long grey bar happens at the exact moment the .js is activated (i.e. the moment when the links on whichever page I'm on turn green, purple, pink or whatever). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, on my home computer (Windows 7, Internet Explorer 10) the problem does not occur and there are no problems with the screen layout. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same thing (MonoBook, IE9, Vista) - it blocks the top of the tabs and glitches the top-right, separating my userpage from the other options (as shown in the screenshot.) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We identified why this might happen in IE6 and IE7 and fixed it. I have no idea why this would happen in IE9 though (which should correctly handle inline-block styling). Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK, I'm back at work the following day on the IE7 computer, and everything looks correct now. Thanks for fixing so quickly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 07:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's changed to a white-on-grey box for just the number, not a huge bar like before. When I put my cursor over it, the box jumps infront of my username, and is then clickable. At least it's not a giant bar anymore! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page changes

This seems to have got rid of the old "Your talk page has changed" message - is that correct? If so, is there any way to restore it? It was far more noticeable than a little (1) next to my user name. An optimist on the run! 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, no. In my interface, at least, I find the use of red (very rare on WP) to be pretty prominent. We may, if there's a really substantial dislike of this format, introduce a full opt-out - but anything like that we do introduce will only be temporary. In the long term, this feature isn't going away. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discoverability of the red badge isn't the best. On a related note: I have a few notifications and getting back to the red badge after I scroll down is quite problematic. We may need to re-visit the conversation around some minimal amount of persistence for the top right navigation, so its always visible. Vibhabamba (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my own use, I don't mind the notifications, but for new users who are being warned, the Orange bar needs to be returned. To be honest, I'd be happy if users who received a warning had a page-filling orange/red/flashing notification, so that way they'd be less likely to ignore it. But if new users were not noticing the orange bar before, they're certainly not going a small flag in the top right. Being told that you have a new message on your talk page should be bold and dramatic, not subtle. That is, the orange bar should be the default, and the notifications form should be the opt-in. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting the new feature to "go away", but it should supplement the existing functionality, not replace it. An optimist on the run! 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've commented below about the problems of getting contact with some new users already - perhaps OBOD could be kept for those new accounts recent enough to be monitored in the list of Edits by New Accounts, or less than however many months old. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page notification isn't prominent enough, and from what I've read it looks like there is nothing to distinguish new messages from other non-urgent notifications. Peter James (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new feature for some purposes, but those orange notifications are I think essential -- as an admin who receives a number of such talk p. messages a day I need to know about them in an absolutely unmistakable fashion immediately, and in dealing with a relatively inactive user, I need to be quite sure they will see my message as soon as they return to WP. I can adjust to noticing it myself however it is sent, but the new user problem is a really serious one for my work--and I think it would be for the work of anyone trying to help new users. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more I use it, the more I even dislike it for myself, as DGG says. This new feature is going to have a very, very negative effect on good faith but misguided new users. Before, if a new user is breaking the rules in some way that matters, I could leave them a message and, at least sometimes, they'd see the orange bar and then a conversation would start. Now, I'm going to leave them messages/warnings, and there's nearly 100% certain not to see them, and then eventually they're going to be blocked for what seems like to them no reason at all. Only then will they find out that someone's been trying to talk to them. That's extremely harsh. The orange bar MUST come back, ideally immediately, at worst case, within a few days. Editor retention is allegedly one of the WMF's big things, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention notification

My reading of the mention notification is that users will only be notified if their userpage is linked in the form [[User:Ryan Vesey]]. Is that correct or will I also be notified if someone mentions [[User talk:Ryan Vesey]] or uses {{u|Ryan Vesey}} (or another shorthand user template)? Ryan Vesey 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom of #Talk page mentions, ANI and interaction bans. Theopolisme (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan Vesey, you are correct that mentions only work if their user page is linked in double brackets. Also note that currently this notification is only sent is someone posts in a new section of a talk page other than yours, and if they sign their edit. For more info, here's the feature requirement. Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go away!

So, I see I have notifications, I check my talk page... and then I still have notifications!! Can they go away please once I check my talk page (or whatever)? Red Slash 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These notifications are not clever enough to know when you've looked at the triggering page. If you click the red number, to expand the flyout, or visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Notifications it should make the ones that you have seen the notification display as read so the number will go away and they will show less prominently.

Do you want the number to go away, or do you want them to go from the list? They could be made to go and the list only show new/unread notifications if it turns out that's popular feedback. LWelling (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Slash Is it bothering you that old notifications continue to sit in the flyout even once you have seen them? We did try to give them a grey treatment so they look different than a new notification. Like Luke said, Clearing them completely so the flyout is empty once you have click on 'Mark as Read' is another option we had explored some time ago. My focus on the team was to design the interface and so the behavior, so your feedback is very important to me. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want the notification to go away to any notice I have seen; just as the orange bar was smart enough to do so, so can this be. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Rivertorch (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Yes, please go away once I've seen them and don't keep having the same, read, red notifications popping up. Red Slash 00:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I came here to make just that request. At least let me manually clear notifications. —teb728 t c 09:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences Notifications tab

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49743

I'm seeing this.

Email settings: A drop down selection, that is defaulted to "Individual notices as they come in", which is definitely not the default on my User Profile tab. I changed it to "Do not send me any email notifications", but if you don't tell users about this, how will they know they need to adjust it?.
Notify me about these events The first item "Talk page posts" ONLY has the option of being notified by email. All the rest have the option of web notification.

Since I prefer not to get email notifications of anything from Wikipedia, and I think I'm not alone in that, I find the defaults need to be adjusted to match the User Profile tab. And why can't we get notification of talk page posts except by email? Are you telling us we can't get notification of our own talk page posts unless we agree to email slush? — Maile (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a confusing quirk in the UI. If you turn off talk page post notifications you'll still get them on the web. I think the code to add a greyed out, always checked checkbox is written, it just was not done in time to be tested and released today. This is the related bug. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47743 It should be clearer looking in a few days.LWelling (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to turn this off

I've unchecked all the options in my preferences, and I've asked for no email notifications, but I'm still getting notifications via the number next to my name. Can this be turned off completely? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New messages on your user talk page can't be turned off since the orange message bar was removed. Ryan Vesey 01:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. The orange bar was much more noticeable, which is important for new users. I'm also not keen on having to go to a special page to view the messages so that the notifications go away. Can we not have an opt-in/out option for this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Does the OBOD have to go? Personally, if it's not too difficult for the devs, I think it would be great to have an option to choose between echo notifications and the orange bar for talk page messages. I love the new notification system, but I'd prefer to keep the orange bar for talk page messages. Ryan Vesey 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different strokes for different folks. I think the removal of the orange bar is the greatest thing ever. I hope I never see it again. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, using #pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; } in my skin css file works on making it invisible. There is a resulting empty space though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, we can potentially introduce an opt-out if there's strong user demand for it - but any opt-out would be temporary. Eventually, Echo will be here for all users in some form. Right now I think we'd probably do better focusing on ways to make talkpage notes more prominent; does anyone have any suggestions on that front? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about - and I'm just spitballing here - a banner that appears at the top of every page a user sees until they visit their talkpage? It could be an eye-catching colour - orange, say - and could have a couple of useful links, like the user's talkpage and talkpage history. I know that's a bit of a left-field idea, but I'm sure it couldn't be that hard to code... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Where can I sign up for the opt-out? I'm not a fan of things becoming more social media-esque. Thanks, — -dainomite 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the moment, if you go to Special:Preferences you'll see an "echo" tab - you can opt out of most things (by which I mean "everything but talkpage messages") there. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want this off my page - I do actually know what my watchlist is for. I also want the prominent orange Talk page post notification back like it used to be. Have you people seriously not learnt a single thing from the Watchlist War of a year ago? We were then promised that all future user interface changes will include an opt-out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page notifications and bots

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49910

Bots are kinda fringe case, If a bot marks its edit as minor to your talk page you wouldn't receive the OBOD. Made the archiving bots and other minor bots very useful without being annoying. Since ECHO has been enabled this feature has disappeared. I am getting useless annoying notices about archival. Werieth (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! That's a trivial fix, I suspect - I'll stick it in Bugzilla now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs?

Is it possible for the notifications to include diffs? Ryan Vesey 02:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. This is particularly important for large, busy pages; while many user talk pages are rather pristine, it's not unusual to have multiple active discussions on a single page. This will become increasingly important as the ability to add individual pages to one's "list" is activated. No diffs for posts on ANI is a nightmare not to be contemplated. Just for the record, I like this. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. What ability? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what User:Ryan Vesey and User:Risker (the users should get notifications right now, BTW ) are trying to suggest is to have a diff for whatever triggered the notification. For example, if someone leaves you a talk page message, it would have a diff of the edit to the talk page. The only notification that wouldn't really need a diff is the user rights change notification.

By the way, why does the section link (→) for a talk page notification only show up at Special:Notifications and not on the drop-down? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using the notification you just sent me, I learned that the link is really a section link. So I clicked Wikipedia talk:Notifications but that was actually piped to Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Diffs?. Check it out for yourself (assuming piping your username doesn't stop the notification). Ryan Vesey 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I got the notification) Yes, but I'm wondering why the section link only shows up on the special page and not on the drop-down after clicking the number. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Those of us who have long talk pages we don't archive as frequently as we should (and I don't want to read any argument to that point right now) like the link to the diff rather than the talk page, as people don't always post to it at the very bottom. If it was possible with the OBoD, it should certainly be possible with Echo.

And let me state for the record that I am very comfortable with this; it's not too different from what's used on, say, Quora and other sites today, seems to have more flexibility and functionality, is less intrusive. I think the real verdict will be rendered by newer editors, and those yet to start editing, who will not be blinded by the way things used to be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be diff links. It's a small change but makes a huge difference. The same goes for in the email notification: the old talkpage emails had a diff link whereas this one is rather sparse and barebones - easy to read, there was too much text in the old ones, but a diff link would be great. By a similar token, I'll also add that if you get a notification about more than one editor it doesn't look like both are linked...? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Diff links are absolutely needed to make it easy to understand what change has happened - whether it's a user mention on a large page with potentially large sections, or a page link, etc. Rd232 ^talk 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for diff links of talk page notices. Like everyone else has said, editors frequently post in the middle of the page to a weeks old discussion. Not always easy to find. Spinning Spark 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be my #1 feature request as well: diffs in both the web notifications, and (especially) the email notifications.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes please, links to sections!! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Annoyance

On Win8+IE10 with the stock monobook theme in the header (where the watchlist, contribution, and other links are) it takes about a half second to load from "(#)" (where # is the number of notifications) to the icon form on every page load. This is slightly annoying when you want to make a fast click on your watchlist or whatnot. I'm guessing there's a bottleneck in the javascript or something? Ryan Norton 02:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought turning on compat mode would fix it but instead after the load it shows the icon color across the whole page horizontally, messing up the entire header layout. Ryan Norton 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; that's a known bug we're tracking now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a bugzilla number you can link here or is it just internal for now? Also, part of the problem appears that it doesn't calculate and make the proper layout size and then has an after-page-load hook to do the real work which then changes the header/toolbar layout. After-page-load layout changes are generally reserved for the main content space. (P.S. Thank you for the fast response times) Ryan Norton 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Innovation

I love this new innovation. A really helpful tool. Thank you all. Melbourne3163 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Notifications is the core framework to increase awareness for editors. We are glad we got some stuff right. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick way to show I've "read" a notification

The current notice doesn't "GO" unless I've clicked on the link. I'd want a "Read them all" button and/or an option to "read" a notification once I click on it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I had 15 notifications earlier today and I'm almost positive they went away as soon as I clicked the number next to my name. Ryan Vesey 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have two notifications after clicking the number and clicking the links multiple times. A "Read them all" button would be useful. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For real? I just did a test where I gave myself 2 notifications. I clicked the number next to my name and they went to 0 instantly. Perhaps it only happens when there's more notifications than the dropdown can handle. Ryan Vesey 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. Anonymous, could you give us some more details? It certainly should be going away :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. The number does go to 0, but I was wondering if there was a way to actually remove read notifications. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) Hi there, My role on this project was the user experience, so I want to understand what your expectation around this interaction. We have been exploring some Dismiss/ Remove/ Unsubscribe from this category feature but we weren't able to get it in for this release. Is there the desire to have an empty flyout (the panel from the top right that carries the notices) when you 'Mark All as read' OR Do you think you would want to dismiss a notification one at a time to remove it from the flyout so you can selectively remove content? Thanks, this information will be useful for the next iteration on the project. Vibhabamba (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what exactly you mean, but I believe Anonymouse would like the ability to completely empty Special:Notifications. Ryan Vesey 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that being able to remove each notification individually would be even more useful because I would be able to tell which notifications I have "dealt with".

For example, I used my bot account to send a message to my talk page. I removed the message because it was a test. But now the notification is still stuck in the list of notifications. I would like to be able to remove it since I already read and responded to that message. That's just my expectation; I'm not sure about other users. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, if I've seen a notification especially "someone wrote on your talk page", I'd like to be able to delete that notification. After all what possible reason could I have for keeping it, if I've visited by talk page? I really have no desire to go onto the notifications page and see every notification I've been sent in the last year. If you really think this Google+/Facebook type interface is necessary then give it the same flexibility including delete, suppress, mark as read/unread, order by type as well as date. NtheP (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd also like is some flexiblity with the notifications. Like the ability to delete some of the notifications, and leave the rest, or even something like "Mark as unread" which would not set the number of notifications back to 0, but leave the marked notifications intact incase I decide to deal with a particlarly time-consuming reply later. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be powerful. For years I've avoided going to my talkpage because I didn't want the message to go away but I didn't want to respond just yet. A "mark unread" feature would be hugely beneficial, especially as now multiple different notifications can be listed it would be helpful for establishing some sort of workflow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagelink notices

Don't you think pagelink notices should... er... link to the pages in question?? Currently all I get is a Whatlinkshere link from the triggering page link. C'mon, this is too obvious to call the feature "beta" - it's alpha. Rd232 ^talk 05:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say this. That's an oversight. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no distinction between template links and links in the article wikitext. Being able to deactivate the feature for certain pages (high-traffic ones that will pop up all the time) is years away, fine. But this needs doing sooner (and preferably with a preference to not notify template links). Rd232 ^talk 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, is that why I just got notification telling me that "Steven Speilberg was linked from Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream)"? Neither of those pages are on my watchlist, but maybe a template is? Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was vandalism. OK, that's just weird. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added the resolved tag as it appears someone added links to notifications after this comment was made. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I think those links only show up on the version at Special:Notifications, not the notifications shown in the flyout from the red badge. Feel free to file a bug if you would like the actual pages linked from both places. Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange bar, prominent talk-page notifications

Does the OBOD have to go?

Well, does it? Some users (myself included) have gotten used to the reassuring orange-y rectangle that has graced our screens for what feels like a small eternity. It'd be a shame to say goodbye just because Oliver and his clan decided to shake things up a bit. ;) All kidding aside, I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate some sort of "big notification for certain events" checkbox in the Echo preferences (so, theoretically I could check that box next to "talk page message" and then get a faux-OBOD whenever those events occurred...like the checkbox currently works for email). Is this at all possible, if only for us reluctantees? Theopolisme (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably worth considering :). I did have some reservations about removing the OBOD - for every other type of activity Echo surfaces, it's an improvement. For talkpage messages (which are dang important) it's not. I imagine if there are substantial concerns we can talk through different ways of resolving them - this could be one of them! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is simply that now, talk page messages "matter" in the UI the exact same as...getting a new article you created linked to from another one? Just something to consider, especially from the new editor standpoint. Theopolisme (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theopolisme you bring up a critical point here. I would like to introduce myself since I'm relatively new. I designed the interface for Echo. The lack of scannability, filters & persistence for the Talk page messages is one we will need to address like Oliver mentioned. Some of the options we considered were 1. A separate badge for Talk messages, even though this will eventually be handled by another project around discussions called Flow. 2. An interim filter/ toggle within the flyout and the archive page that lets the user toggle between All notifications and Talk page Notifications only. Vibhabamba (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

might it have been a good idea to actually testy some of these things prior to release, or at least discuss them with the community? DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that the orange bar stay, or at least that we have the option to choose it for talk-page messages, rather than the new notifications. The bar is much more noticeable. I also think it's problematic to remove the bar from new users; the little numbers next to the name are easily missed, and people don't always add an email address to their preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The truth is we need a way to differentiate unimportant notices (new Signpost issue), important notices (edit reverted), and vital notices (ANI mentions). The OBOD can't tell the first of these from the last – and Echo can't tell any of them apart. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support having an option to retain OBOD. Also, make the default setting for any user as "enabled" TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also support retention of the orange bar, please, if at all possible. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Support for retention of the orange bar. To be honest, I was puzzled at first about references to the orange bar - I didn't recall the message having any background colour, and I had to check on another Wiki. To me, that shows how effective it was, that the message is more memorable than the colour. An optimist on the run! 09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm spartacus! err, wait, wrong thing... I also Support an option for retaining the OBOD. — -dainomite 09:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong support for retaining OBOD. It's hard enough to get new editors to look at their talk pages as it is. If all they get is a little number at the top (or wherever it goes on Vector), they aren't going to know what it's for. OBOD is in the face obvious. As for me, I missed four messages before I noticed it and worked out what it was for. I can see it as useful for the 'other page' notifications - which are useful and a step in the right direction. (I don't always complain...) I see it as a giant step backwards in terms of communicating with newbies (and experienced editors who are busy) for talk page messages. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for retaining OBOD (which, on my user page was always purple)

The miniscule teeny tiny red pipe notification is only as workable as an editor's vision. Visually challenged editors will not be able to see it due to size, and/or that combined with color. Some human beings cannot see variations of the red spectrum.
Too easy to get in the habit of ignoring it. How long before any editor develops a habit of ignoring the new red pipe and eventually forgets to even notice it's there?

— Maile (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get a purple one? Peridon (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Maile66 uses the modern skin, which is infinitely superior (except for my note below noting Echo doesn't work thus far on modern. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, an answer to why mine was purple while everyone else saw orange. However, since you pointed that out, I switched to monoskin just to see how the notification "blip" looks. No improvement. Different location on the page, but it's still just something that could be easily missed. Quite frankly, even if it was fantastic button on monobook, complete with flashing lights and accompanying music worthy of an approaching emperor, it still wouldn't be enticing enough to make me leave modern skin.— Maile (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong support for retaining OBOD Werieth (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for retention I've already missed two messages today because the new interface doesn't catch my attention in the same way; if I hadn't seen them on my watchlist I still wouldn't know they were there. Admins are expected to respond promptly to questions; how are we meant to do that if we don't know they've been asked? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, one of the things I like best about Modern is that the OBOD was a smooth, calm purple. Not jarring or angry, but relaxed. Compared to that, I find this big honking red button in a different font from the rest of my p-personal menu exceptionally attention-getting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for retaining OBOD I don't think we should fix what isn't broken. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support for retaining it, and in order to make sure of reaching new users, it should be on by default. Iwouldn't have any objection to a preferences option for not listing it on one's own pages (though I would certainly leave mine on). As an admin working with problematic articles by new users, I frequently need to communicate in a unmistakable fashion with a new or relatively new user about a problem, and I know by experience they will not normally check their talk page routinely, the way most experienced users do. I want to know for certain that if they log in again, or edit again, they will infallibly see my notice. I was appalled yesterday to find this had stopped--I assumed whatever would be done would be in addition to existing features. Naïve of me, to be sure--I should have learned from the past that those who develop things here rarely think of the implications. This is not their fault--it is impossible for an individual to do this, but what is not impossible is to notify clearly, loudly, and unmistakably just what features are being removed before it happens. I hope it will not prove also impossible to get the developers to listen to what seems to be the unanimous feedback here. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for retaining OBOD I do alot of repetitive tasks, including CSD, and the OBOD helps me to respond to talkpage posts right away, when I would otherwise go on with what I'm doing without checking anything for long periods. INeverCry 19:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save the OBOD: I was going to start this thread, but someone else already has. While I like the "mentions" aspect of, well, mentions, the OBOD is much more visible. It's what we all know and love. Can't we keep it and enable it as we wish? The new notifications are too small, not as eye catching, and categorize too many things in one little notification feature. While I support notifications, I would love to use the OBOD for talk page notifications...perhaps more! MJ94 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think OBOD needs to be turned back on, at least until ECHO can supports diff links. I also had not thought about the impact this is going to have on new users until I read this thread. New users need a MUCH more prominent notification than a silly little red square. Spinning Spark 23:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support returning OBOD (at least as an option) I appreciate the color of the notifications square, but it just doesn't catch my middle-aged eye as well. Thanks for your efforts and all the best, Miniapolis 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little red notification in the top right corner isn't the first thing that I look for when checking Wikipedia for a new notification. The OBOD was front and center and easier to see. Devin (talk)

Are you nuts?

Seriously, are you nuts? I've only just noticed that Echo kills the Orange Bar for talkpage notices. Until now I was under the impression that Echo, being still very much under development, would supplement existing systems, including the Orange Bar. Did no-one think

yes, this is a major interface change which we should really ask people about.
hm, asking people is too much trouble. Let's just make sure we don't get rid of existing key features.
hm, let's at least give people LOTS OF CLEAR WARNING.

Honestly, between this and the mobile development saga, I think my WP:DEVMEMO idea is more needed than ever. (Also some of this pain would be reduced with cross-wiki watchlists....) Rd232 ^talk 05:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a show of hands of people who actually like the orange bar? I mean, sure, we're going to have that same, small group of people who hate and despise every interface change and who are probably still bitching about monobook, but seriously, the orange bar? The most horrible interface mod ever created? Please, just let it die. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

−1 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People always seem to complain there wasn't notice even when there was, if they personally were surprised by a change. To the credit of Oliver and others who built this feature, there were several days of watchlist notices, Village Pump technical posts, and multiple Signpost mentions (1, 2) of this as a major new feature under development. That list only covers about what was mentioned on-wiki here, and doesn't include the multiple IRC office hours devoted to the feature, monthly progress reports about Foundation engineering delivered via blog, wiki pages, and mailing lists, the public specifications on MediaWiki.org which have been available for months, or the public Editor Engagement mailing list which gives weekly updates about every software development effort on this team. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 06:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count because you didn't give us a chance to bite your head off for spamming by leaving talk page notices.</sarcasm> Ryan Vesey 06:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no Steven, you don't get to treat me like an ignorant moron because WMF failed to adequately document and advertise a major interface change. Echo/Notifications coming? Yes, lots of notice of that. And I've even used it a bit on mediawiki.org. A couple of days ago, when it was due to go live on 25 April, I read most of the documentation. And still until it was mentioned and confirmed on this page I was totally clueless that the Orange Bar was going to disappear. Is the Orange Bar perfect? No, but it's long-established, and you're replacing it with something which in important respects is materially worse (for now), because it makes talkpage messages much less prominent, and certainly very different. In short, your response merely proves that you really don't get the communication problem here. Rd232 ^talk 07:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The design issue was mentioned in January 2012: mw:Talk:Echo_(Notifications)#You_have_new_messages_bar_10999. Yes, that's well over a year ago. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shows hands Regardless of whether or not who likes or dislikes the orange bar (You certainly dislike it, and I certainly like it) we must think of the utility it has. Its fairly obvious many users are very comfortable with having the OBOD, which replaced by a small red box is not a good thing. Whats more important is that there are many new users and IPs who would pay attention to think a lot more if there was a flashing orange bar across the page. We've already got plenty of problems with users not seeing their talk page. If the OBOD goes, all they see is a red link listing dozens of reverts and one tiny warning to block, which would be missed very easily. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think IPs still get the OBOD since they don't get notifications. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below, #IP notifications. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am a big fan of the OBOD as it is a large bright notification that cannot be easily missed. and should not have been removed. Werieth (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holding hand up I don't like getting OBOD, but I find it useful (except for Signpost's arrival and bots signing things for people). I think it essential for new editors. Getting them to listen to what we're saying is bad enough - with this tiny thing they're not even going to know that we are telling them something. How can we claim to have warned them about something if they don't even know they've got a talk page? (Does happen...) If it's being kept for IPs, why can't it be applied to editors with less than an agreed number of weeks, or edits, with a helpful little bot posting on their talk page to tell them to start looking for little red things instead when they've been here that long? (With an orange banner to tell them of the bot message, of course...) Peridon (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another hand shown. Many new users do not understand about talk pages, (and some even manage to miss the orange bar!) They certainly will not notice the small red blob on the top line. The right solution would be to bring back the orange bar, ON by default, with an option for experienced users to turn it OFF if they choose (which I, for one, would not do.) JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hand raise - there are several threads on this page requesting the same thing. Is it possible to amalgamate them? Perhaps an RfC could be raised. (Sorry, I'm rather busy at present or I'd do it myself.) An optimist on the run! 13:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think 'bring back' OBOD is a very understandable, but somewhat oversimplified response to this development. I would say: Please make talk page notifications more 'noticeable'. This is per the common concept that direct user messages should be more distinct than environment messages. If this cannot be speedily done, consider bringing back the Orange bar for a while in addition to the notification indicator. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, the Orange Bar isn't irreplaceable (though for something so long established, replacement will always take a bit of getting used to). There's two clear issues: (a) direct user messages need to have due prominence (and not be piled in with much less important event messages) and (b) a transition to a new interface needs to be done as smoothly as possible. Both aspects have been badly mishandled here. Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hand raise. I like it for myself, and as mentioned below, it's essential for IPs. Make it default with opt-out, since there's no point in forcing registered users to have it if they don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hand raise—separate from the IP issue, which is getting fixed (?) below, I personally like the orange bar, and it would be good to have something more noticeable. Ignatzmice•talk 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment as Ignatz and Rd232, JohnCD and others working with new editors have said, it's the new users for whom this is essential. Sure , there are other ways of doing it, but the OBOD worked. If someone wants to propose something equally effective, let them propose it--and I mean propose it, not implement it site-wide and then see if there are objections. (this is not the first time a transition to a new interface element has been done wrong, and if we are going to have an rfc, it should be about how the users can recapture control of the public-facing parts of the project. It is possible to do better than this--some changes have gone well, but it's clear we need either some formal way or a major informal cultural change that will make it clear we expect to be consulted, and to have things adequate trialed. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You can't design features by consensus, and those that do end up failing. The notifications system is a vast improvement over what we have and it is the way forward. For various reasons, the community is intransigently conservative in their approach, and they are neither open to new ideas nor welcoming to new features. If they allow the site to remain static and unchanging, it will eventually be passed like BlackBerry in the slow lane. An RfC isn't the solution, since we don't need consensus—we need design expertise and experience and leadership. There is a reason that all great art is at first attacked and despised and then, years later, acclaimed and celebrated. Unless you are open to new things (and for various physiological reasons, most people over the age of 30 are not) and are willing to give them a chance, you probably shouldn't have a say in any new technology that the site implements. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or insensitive, but it's based on past experience. I mean, look what happens when you let Homer Simpson design a car. Do you tell your dentist how to do his job, or your doctor or your attorney? We expect professional designers to do their job, and to listen to our feedback, but I do not accept a design by consensus rationale as that will always fail. When it comes to feature design, we will always need people who are willing to take risks, experiment with new ideas, and to incorporate feedback from the community, and that's the best we can expect. Can you imagine if your medical procedures or your water treatment facility was determined by the consensus of the unskilled public? Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont tell the dentist to do his job, but neither does he do anything to make me unable to do my job properly. We dont dislike change- As a matter of fact, most of us love Echo, but hate only how OBOD was handled. What we do dislike is the way it was handled - OBOD was replaced without any proper warning or a possibilty of retention for those who want it, and its replacement fails miserably in fitting into its shows. Echo is disastrously inefficient in showing diffs, which are a must for most of us who would not want to scroll through pages of history. It also fails to be noticeable enough for anyone, and as Yunshui pointed out, comes in the way of us giving messages for us the priority it deserves. Whats worst about it is the way it was handled after these issues were pointed out - We still are yet to hear anything cohesive from the WMF except sarcasm and are nowhere near getting an "interim" solution while these issues are apparently beind "sorted out". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this. Echo looks great, from what I've seen it do so far—but the orange bar (that wasn't really "doom"ful) worked much better for talk-page changes. Ignatzmice•talk 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, leaving it to the professionals requires that they have some understanding of the function of what they are re-designing. For communicating with new users, replacement of the conspicuous orange bar by a small red blob is like finding that the doctor has amputated your foot because it had an ingrowing toenail and he didn't think it looked nice: "Oh, you used to use it for walking on? No, you can't have it back, feet are not the way forward, but we'll see whether we can think of some kind of prosthesis... " JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veriditas, I do not go in the dental chair, say "Do whatever you please," and open my mouth. And if it is not right, I certainly let her know and expect her to work on fixing it until I am satisfied. What she can reasonably expect from me is to limit my wants to the grounds of what is possible. I certainly expect her not to take risks with unproven procedures, or experiment on me without my consent.

And on WP, I do not go around saying that people under thirty are most of them inherently reckless. Some are, and the ones who are, shouldn't be programming the site. Any over-thirty people who aren't willing to try new things aren't here on WP in the first place. Why do you think I joined 7 years ago? I was even willing to join Citizendium at the same time--not all new things work out. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation issues

Some docs that need updating:

Help:Talk page#You have new messages Done The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:You have a new message#User talk notification Already done The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages Done The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably others too. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Hey all; sorry for the problems with this - here's an update on what we're doing:
On the IP issue, this is being actively discussed and patched - hopefully it'll be fixed with some sense of urgency.

On the prominence of the OBOD, I've just started a thread on ways to make the talkpage note more prominent. The issue of reducing prominence for talkpage notices was something I brought up, and so we have done some mental prep for making a design change. What I'd suggest, however, is that the full orange bar is likely to be a substantial clash and change (it basically means taking talkpage messages out of Echo - which would totally work for this problem, but I'm convinced there's a better fix we can all think of). What I'd really appreciate is this: if anyone has any ideas for ways to increase prominence for talkpage messages other than the OBOD, please provide them here; I'll throw them at the Product team and hopefully we can find a solution that works for everyone. If none of the ideas any of us think of pan out, we can talk about the OBOD. Is that okay? Thank you, everyone, for your restraint thus far; I appreciate it must be very frustrating. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger notification button, at the very least. This current button is a third of the size of Facebook's — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea :). Adding to the list! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to give me a big orange bar that is extremely noticeable so that there is no question about whether or not someone who is actively making edits might have missed it...and so that I won't happen to miss a notification if I'm not specifically looking for it between each edit. Thanks. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "other than the OBOD". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be "other than the OBOD"? Fine. Give me a Red Bar of Death...everyone's happy now. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the suggestion "bring back the OBOD" is already on the table, which means you're not really adding to the conversation by providing it (ditto "Red Bar of Death", albeit for different reasons). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If none of the ideas any of us think of pan out, we can talk about the OBOD. Is that okay?" - That is not on the table. That is on the backburner. I'm a big fan of adding options. I don't understand why you'd take them away. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do think I'm adding to the conversation by adding my agreement that removing the bar was a bad idea. I want it back. Saying so adds to the conversation. If only one person says it, it's simply going to be ignored. It needs to be said more than once. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a user and a developer, I would say that anything that gives people the tendency to nickname something the OBoD is something to get rid of ASAP. Seriously, if you want an OBoD, code a nice little JS to turn your own notifications into a nice personal OBoD, but including an OBoD should not be a future design strategy. As I stated before, I'm not opposed to bringing it back temporarily in order to fix the short term visibility issue, but that thing needs to go in the long term. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until today, I'd never seen anyone ever call it that. I shouldn't have to code for myself something that already existed and was removed for no reason. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DJ, but that's a pathetic argument. Just because a few people give it a derogatory nickname doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. Make it an optional extra - opt in, or opt out, I don't care either way. An optimist on the run! 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is already an option maze and we shouldn't add more to it, just to cater to a few users. We should fix the problems and don't get stuck in old ideas simply because they are what we are used to. How many websites do you know to throw an orange bar in your face when someone is talking to you, other than MediaWiki ? It's an outdated concept from 2003 when we simply couldn't do any better. Echo isn't better YET, but it should be better and as soon as Echo is better, we need to get rid of that Orange bar, without a 'i wan't to be in 2003'-option. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what websites are you comparing WP with? I can't off-hand think of any that have the same need for users to promptly read messages to them. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider my talk page to be the equivalent of a private message system on a forum or the like. And in the forums I tend to visit, the notice that I have new messages is always obvious and in my face. Either a big red bar (Fark) or a pop-up message. I find that on sites that prefer subtle notifications (such as Twitter), I can visit many times over several days and never see that I have a direct message. Even on the Facebook notification format that obviously inspired this, I rarely notice the new messages on the website. I notice that I have new messages because it pops up on my phone. Reso lute 01:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously suggest taking talkpage notifications out of Echo immediately. That fixes the problem with both IPs and "where's my Orange Bar" for both occasional users and regulars, and reintegration in a way that everyone is happy with can then be discussed and implemented at leisure, on a separate page (this talkpage covering all issues is not a good place for detailed discussion of alternative designs). Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable as an interim solution; I'll propose it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about coloring the entire "menu bar" area ([username] [Talk] ... [Log out]) when there's an active notice, rather than relying on a small box? So if I had a new message, the background of that entire area of my screen would go red, or orange, or whatever. I think for many of us, the top right of the screen isn't an area our eyes spend much time on when we're using WP, so we may need a more significant kick in the pants to notice things there than we would elsewhere. Another idea I heard on IRC (I think from user:Nick?): make the fly-out automatic for [logged-out users|newbies|non-confirmed accounts], rather than expecting them to notice and click to see what's going on. A big ol' box opening up at the top of your screen is much more noticeable than a little red speck. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both reasonable :). I suspect our designers may not like prominently colouring such a large area, but I'll see what we can do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of illustrating what I mean, since I'm not sure I described it well, I was picturing something like this terrible MS paint mockup. Though in my mind the coloring would be slightly narrower than that, top-to-bottom - just enough to cover the space the text takes up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make the orange bar an option in one's Preferences? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also reasonable, although I'd worry that if we create the option incoming users will play around with it - it's not just 'legacy' users we're hitting. Still worth bringing up, though :). Really what we need to do is increase the prominence of Echo, at least for talkpage messages, otherwise we've built something inferior to what it replaced. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be a problem for incoming users to play around with it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's I very cool script. Thanks so much Writ Keeper! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the things I hate about the technical side of WP is when a developer says something like "Seriously, if you want an OBoD, code a nice little JS". Oh yeh? Some people can do that - and they're probably doing it. Don't get me wrong - I used to program in COBOL but I changed my line of work and became a Apple Mac user instead of a PC coder. I've never had to learn JS or the current 'in' things. I would think that the number of regular editors who can just turn out a little JS thing in a couple of minutes is rather small compared to those who can't. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the counterpoint to that is that it only takes one person to make the script; once they have, anyone of any level of technical ability can install and use it. (Of course, there's the question of how do you let people know that you've made the script; I know that spamming my orange bar script in different messages across multiple threads as I did made me feel uncomfortable.) But it's not a very good idea for the official developer to rely on JS widgets for important UI components like this; I know that my implementation of the orange bar is much less optimal than the normal one, and I hope to get rid of it when the orange bar is re-enabled. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think my personal preference would be to take talk page notifications out of Echo and maintain the orange message bar. An alternative would be to create a special flyout for talk page messages that automatically flies out. It couldn't be the current flyout which is far too intrusive. Ryan Vesey 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ryan's idea of a permanent flyout that cannot be dismissed implicitly, only explicitly. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the orange bar for talk page messages. Why remove something that works so well.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone explain to me why talk p. messages cannot at least temporarily invoke the OBOD as well as the new system? I'm not a programmer, but it seems intuitively unreasonable that both could be triggered. (for talk p. messages--not the other notifications--I don't think anyone is asking for that). DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we make a permanent flyout in the new notifications system that spans the width of the entire article and is, albeit optionally, orange or another prominent color? I think that this would probably alleviate everyone's concerns as briefly summarized by DGG, especially if this span was not as easily dismissible as normal notifications as suggested by Ryan. — RandomDSdevel (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me my orange bar back

That is all. Thanks. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Update above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why re-adding the OBOD (as an opt-out) would require taking talk page notifications out of Echo? Why can't it do both, for those that want it to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it in the sense that, if Echo becomes opt-in then (once we've settled the interaction issues around toggling between them) Echo has essentially stopped dealing with talkpage messages. It can do both - but it seems clear that if we make Echo opt-in for this feature, it will probably remain forever opt-in :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no problems at all with making Echo opt-out instead of opt-in; in fact, I don't even care if there is no opt out. Someone could probably write a javascript thingy if they really really hate the little square. I just want to make the OBOD opt-out. So everyone gets Echo, and everyone also gets the OBOD, unless they opt out. It sounds like you're saying if you opt in to the OBOD, you have to opt out of Echo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, opt-out of Echo for talkpage messages, and then we have this conversation all over again in N months when we disable the opt. I'd note Rd's suggestion a few sections above to remove talkpage messages from Echo until we've got a proper solution; I'm going to propose that to the team, because I think it's totally worthwhile. In terms of what the solution is, any ideas for 'things that would increase prominence but are not OBOD-y' would be most appreciated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a meatball:ForestFire; I'm not sure where to comment anymore, so I'll keep doing it here I guess. Rd's idea for now seems a good one, but I just want a clear answer to this: is it technically impossible to have talk page notifications included both in Echo and in something like the OBOD, or is it just what those in charge of this new interface want? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More the latter, I think - but I'd add the caveat that I am most certainly not a dev. I write in R and Python. MediaWiki makes my eyes hurt. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. My request stands. Please give me my orange bar back. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Could you explain why the orange bar is the only acceptable option to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Give me an annoyingly obvious visual notification that there is a message. You can format it however you'd like, but I don't want a tiny notification that can easily be missed. Seeing as the orange bar has worked for years, that seems like a good option. I don't want the new option to be less noticeable in any way. The 'only' plus I see to this is that the people who still think the fake new messages bar is funny will have to finally come up with a new joke. Could you explain to me why the orange bar is not acceptable? --Onorem ♠Dil 15:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's more helpful; I agree that increasing prominence is paramount. The orange bar itself takes up almost too much room, and doesn't fit within the wider workflow for notifications, which are the issues. Having said that, I am in total agreement that the notifications workflow needs to do a lot better at making talkpage messages prominent - otherwise we've effectively replaced something with a more inferior alternative. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to have the orange bar along with the new system? After all, I think the bar was more noticeable than the new method (although I can't say for sure as I have yet to get any new notifications under the present system). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing ways to resolve it - see #Update above. It may or may not be possible to have both, but I'd suggest what we should focus on is "ways to make it more prominent that are not the orange bar", noting that we always have the orange bar as a backup if we can't think of any. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are parallels here with the move to the Vector skin, aren't there? This is a bit like switching everyone from Monobook to Vector, instead of introducing Vector as an additional option and letting people stick with Monobook if they want. It ought to be possible for Echo to do an Orange Bar for talkpage notifications just as the current system does (but integrated into Echo to ensure it all links up with notifications going to zero, etc). If it's one of a number of design options given to users, then everyone can be accommodated, and in particular newer designs can be the default. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a parallel - what we seem to disagree on is whether the way the Vector rollout was handled is a Good Thing. Now, personally, I use monobook everywhere; I can't stand Vector. I find that it hides editor-centric features that are, to me, very important, in favour of providing a reader-centric view. But a bit of me feels like the switch meant we avoided having difficult conversations about Vector, and it suffered as a result. I don't want the same to happen to Echo, for example. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; perhaps we should hire you as a developer in place of the current ones. The situation with Vector is a great example of what we should have done here — we changed the default without disabling the old version. Why can't we do the same here? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the old skins makes every new feature for MediaWiki take twice as long to develop. There's a reason other websites don't keep old features - it builds up technical debt until it is impossible to deploy any new feature to the site, which is basically what's been happening to MediaWiki over the past several years. Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between at some point abandoning support for some little-used old skins after a couple of years of something better being well-established and used by most, and suddenly switching it for everyone, even before it's had time to get bedded in. Seriously: if old skins are an issue, then consider abandoning support for them (begin by taking them out of preferences, so you can only access them some special way, like putting a line in your common.js). Doing it gradually and with plenty of notice and clearly better alternatives is OK, whereas doing it suddenly, without clear notice and not clearly better alternative is not. Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I wouldn't be so blasé about this. Removing skins with <1% usage has taken months to work out logistically. Monobook usage is so high that it doesn't even enter into that conversation. The way the Vector rollout was handled meant that it was never improved to the point where Monobook could be replaced for the vast majority of our power users. Supporting Monobook as a requirement is a technical debt that we'll never likely get rid of. -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the main issue in the "bring back OBOD" discussion is the prominence of echo notifications doesn't approach OBOD prominence, and maybe special prominence when it contains a talk page notification. Would be nice if that were addressed right in Echo to make it useful instead of turning Echo into the "notification stream of crap I don't care about" which would certainly happen if we made it optional. (BTW, statistically OBOD only has a 50% clickthrough for IP users, so while visually ugly, it isn't that prominent) -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting - suggesting that messages, at least for IPs, need to be more prominent, not much less. And if WMF was willing to take talkpage notifications out of Echo temporarily whilst a new design is worked out in collaboration with the community, that would be useful data for discussion. As it is, it seems we must humbly await whatever it is that will be bestowed upon us. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better explanation of how they collected their data? I like having the new messages bar. I almost never clicked on it directly to look at my new messages. I almost always go to the history from my watchlist when it pops up...and just because people don't care enough to click doesn't mean it isn't prominent. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want the orange bar?

Adding an RfC. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia technical issues and templates

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

After reading TheDJ's latest comment above, I almost get the feeling that those who want the orange bar are going to be treated like they don't count. He argues that creating an option to allow users to have the orange bar would be catering to a few users and his statement that "we need to get rid of that Orange bar, without a 'i wan't to be in 2003'-option" indicates that the wishes of orange bar proponents are being ignored. It almost sounds to me like the message is that they should be allowed to change things without our input because they know better and they don't want their website to look outdated. However, it seems to me that if the editors want an orange bar, they should get an orange bar. After all, they're the ones for whom the notifications system is being designed. So, the question becomes: do we want to have the option of retaining the orange bar? Because if we do, our wishes should be honored. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (to clarify: I am not saying that the orange bar has to be the only option. I merely wanted it to be one of the options. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand how TheDJ's comment has any implication as to what'll happen to proponents of the orange bar; TheDJ is not associated with the Echo development team any more than you are. Let me be clear as to our perspective on Echo, and on the orange bar:

We need a way of surfacing notifications to the community. At the moment, this mostly doesn't happen, so we've built echo to solve for that. One of the areas where notifications do happen, however, is in relation to talkpage messages; those are currently surfaced very prominently via the orange bar. Conceptually, it makes a lot of sense to build talkpage messages into Echo - having notifications split over lots of different avenues is what's happening now, and if we don't solve for that we haven't built very useful software - but I have repeatedly noted to the product team that at the moment, our solution is actually worse than the existing features when it comes to talkpage messages, even if it's better for everything else.
So the solution is: find a better way, a more prominent way, of surfacing talkpage messages. This could certainly be the orange bar: that's an option available to us. But, riddle me this - is anyone who wants the orange bar actually wanting it because its attribute of "being an orange bar" is paramount to how they work, or because its prominence - how apparent it makes talkpage messages - is paramount to how they'd work? I strongly suspect it's the latter, and comments both below and above ("yes, or something equally as visible", for example) seem to go in the same direction.
Finding a way to make this work is of paramount importance to us; it's worth noting that with most of the developers (and all of the designers) living on PST, they've only just woken up. Once they've got into the office and had a chance to talk/think about this, I'd hope they'd have at least mock-ups for a solution later today. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. TheDJ's user page states that he is a MediaWiki developer, so I assumed he was involved in some way. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's a volunteer developer; to my knowledge he has no involvement in Echo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry about the incorrect assumption. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. I'm used to it. As much as as Wikipedians are used to be blamed for any piece of bad content that is on Wikipedia. People like to think in monoliths. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. I really did mean 'developer', not even specifically Mediawiki developer. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver, on your second bullet point -- from where I sit, it is absolutely about it being an orange bar. I think we are disconnecting here: you seem to be focused on whether or not the new system is an improvement. But my concern isn't about whether we are getting to a better place, but how we get there.

Removing the orange bar (as it has functioned for some time) without warning is a problem because there are tens of thousands of people in a learning process with Wikipedia, whose learning process is being disrupted by changing the feature without warning or explanation.

I don't think the orange bar has to live forever, but it does have to be preserved while a thoughtful transition is executed. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that socialisation was not handled particularly well; the E2 should certainly have done a lot more work socialising the more prominent changes, and also addressing the rather obvious problem with switching from such a large notification to such a small one, even with informed (albeit probably begrudging) consent from the community. I don't think we're in disagreement on the second point; "it is familiar" is a different attribute from "it is orange" :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was more worried about engineering risks, like disruption of service because we were replacing talk page notificatiosn and people might have them dropped or some other degradation in Quality of Service. I still feel that had that happenned, it'd have been far worse than this ;-) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E2? -Pete (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor Engagement team, that built Echo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Pete (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Personally, I see no reason why the orange bar should not be an option. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or something equally as visible. 'Raising the prominence' doesn't describe enough how much they're willing to change from just having the tiny red box next to my user name. It should at least be an option. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone who isn't me, on the team, works and lives on Pacific Standard Time. It doesn't describe it enough because the people qualified to make this decision are all asleep :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver, I'm confused by this -- can you clarify? -Pete (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused ;p. Onorem objected to the fact that we had not described enough how willing we were to change the feature, as it stands now. My reply was that the Echo development team, minus myself and one of our developers, lives in San Francisco. It is currently 9:42am in San Francisco, and before now has been, well, less than that. The team has not yet had a chance to describe how willing we are to change the feature, because the team was not awake. I cannot make judgment calls on product direction on my own. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading comprehension error on my end -- now resolved with caffeine intake. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't things be rolled out when people are awake to respond to them. I guess I'm not sure exactly what time this launched. My 'raising the prominence' was actually commenting on the statement made by Eloquence. Once again, I still don't understand why you have to take something away to introduce something new. If I opt-out of Echo, will I get my bar back? (I'm assuming that's tied to fixing the unacceptable lack of notification for IP users. Did you really not test this idea with anyone who wasn't logged in?) --Onorem ♠Dil 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, which is why we launched it at about 1pm PST, giving several hours for problems to become obvious. I note that this issue was raised during that time period - we just (obviously) didn't have time to address it so late in the day. There is, I'd note, currently no opt-out for Echo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I didn't notice it last night. (That's kind of a theme now. /tongueincheek) If I opt-out of every option for notification, I just get nothing? Do you know yet what the notification for IPs is going to look like? --Onorem ♠Dil 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to have the orange bar back, "on" by default, with a clear path to turning it off if and when a user is happy with using the new notification system instead. This seems like a no-brainer. Removing a core feature like the orange notification bar shouldn't be done suddenly. -Pete (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets unbreak the system and {{trout}} the dev who decided that killing the OBoD was a good idea. The visibility and impact of the OBoD is needed especially for new users and issues on their talk pages. Werieth (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. A tiny [1] in the upper right corner is not a noticeable form of notification. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duhh. We need to question Eloquence's willingness to participate in a consensus-built encyclopedia project, since he's basically said up above "We don't care what you want — you don't get it back". Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. And as a default for new accounts. A bot can tell them how to stop it after they've been here long enough to be trusted to check their notifications. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per my comments on the above section. — Maile (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely as I've stated several times before. An optimist on the run! 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no problems with this system (save one minor issue I'll discuss elsewhere, if I can't find whether someone else has raised it), I think we should allow people to keep the old system in preferences, much as we allow them to keep older skins. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or something as least as conspicuous, as the default for IPs and newbies. No objection to an option for experienced users to turn it off. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I consider talk page messages to be very important, and I would like a less subtle notification of them. -- tariqabjotu 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As JohnCD says, if not the old system something at least as conspicuous. Tiderolls 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes A prominent notification of a new post on my Talk page is essential because Talk page notification is orders of magnitude more important than all the other stuff. The rest of the "notifications" are irrelevant irritations - my Watchlist is perfectly adequate "notification" for everything else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I much preferred it, find it easier to miss the tiny Facebook-style notifications badge. I wasn't aware of this change until it was rolled out; talk about a solution in search of a problem. --John (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 It's hard to overstate my Yes. And please explicitly tell the rest of us the net time you plan a change nearly as big as this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I want a bar at the top of my screen every time someone posts on my talk page. I want it big and orange and I want it to instill a feeling of Doom in my heart if I don't click on the link in it to find out why it was there. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or something equally visible, as a turnoff-able option. I have non-standard colour vision, and a tiny little badge in a colour that most(?) people may see as a strong visual cue but I don't, isn't a functional replacement for a bright persistent bar that won't go away until I visit my talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a seriously important point - this change violates WP:Accessibility. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And I already provided that input in the surveymoneky. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes, I agree with TheOriginalSoni, that it's hard to overstate how important it is to give some notice to the editors next time a change nearly as big as this is planned. Please bring back the Orange bar somehow. - tucoxn\^talk 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I like it; lots of other people like it; give us warning next time. (As a side note, I don't know if the IP-fix has also restored the bar for non-confirmed users; if not, that has to happen ASAP as well.) Ignatzmice•talk 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It's hard enough to get new users to read their messages - they certainly will not see this one. Hey ho - more blocking will be the order of the day. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 To me, I support thus wanting to have it badly. I choose orange because actually red and orange are sensitive to your brain; it can actually contribute caution (or urgent) to your brain. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣22 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I already stated why I would like one elsewhere but Technical 13 expresses it very well. — -dainomite 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 The orange bar works. It works for me, it works for new users, it works for pretty much everybody. If you have something that works, then don't break it. Jheald (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I dislike the Facebookification of Wikipedia and want the Orange bar back, I do need the developers for other feature requests, so this is more of a feature request then a complaint. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy <expletive deleted> do I hate "Flow" in that article.— -dainomite 07:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he thinks we're all going to post little photos to go with our posts, I'm afraid he's barking. Up the wrong tree, that is. Talk pages aren't putting new editors off. It's things like trying to find where the hell you are in an edit window so you can actually do something. Soimething like Facebook and Twitter is OK for Facebook and Twitter. Why can't we stick to the encyclopaedia way and leave social media dumbing down (of finished results - not the edit window trouble) to social media? Peridon (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and, considering the impact on communicating with new users, I think, unlkie MBisanz, that this is the highest priority thing for the developers to do (unless the wehile site goes down, or something of that magnitude). Considering the extraordinarily great preponderance of yeses, the time to do it is before tomorrow. Even if it means reverting the entire change, it should be done, and then the good other features added back selectively DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Reposting what I wrote elsewhere: With the orange bar, we knew it was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. The orange bar is particularly important for new users, who might otherwise not notice that people are speaking to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a matter of urgency. AGK [•] 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. MER-C 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The Echo interface would have been a good supplement to the very obvious OBOD and giving the users the ability to use one, the other, or both should have been a no-brainer. Personally, I want the obvious notification. Reso lute 00:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least until diffs are available in Echo AND yes, until new users/IPs get a more prominent notification BY DEFAULT AND yes, until regular users can turn on the prominent notification as an option. Spinning Spark 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes - Now and forever. The OB should be an opt-out option, not removed by fiat. BRING IT BACK! (...please?) Manning (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per AutomaticStrikeout and Technical 13. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes, please. Miniapolis 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. I dislike the orange bar but would prefer to see a much more prominent talk-page notification system than the one rolled out with Echo. I'm sure I could learn to live with squinting at my monitor each time I log in, but newbies failing to notice they have new messages is a huge concern, and I think this needs to be fixed asap. (Other than that, so far I think Echo is a great idea.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make it default, and make it mandatory for IPs. Most of the time I drop a message on a user's talk page, I'm trying to get his attention. Lots of times, its the last step before I block him. That's why I'm leaving a message. I don't want to have to wonder whether a newbie is ignoring messages or just doesn't realize he's got one. —Kww(talk) 06:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1, +1, +1, +1, +1 Yes, yes, please. I got 3 notifications now, I was almost missing the talk page notification! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tito, you might want to use a +5. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TheOriginalSoni, That's five times plus one, not plus five! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematically, its the same TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically, there is more emphasis on the individual +1s and thus would illustrate a more deeply held belief than +5. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic yes. I don't care if it's orange, vermillion, puce or heliotrope; I don't mind whether it's a bar, a banner, a flyout, a popup or an animated .gif of bunny rabbits frolicking in the snow; I don't give two hoots if it says "You have new messages", "Oi! Talkpage! Now!" or just "Guflurgle": just give me something that emphatically lets me know I've got a damn message. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone should have the option to keep the bar. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, make the orange bar default for new users and IPs. I prefer the orange bar but it is okay if an option is included to turn it off for autoconfrimed users. --Hdt83 ^Talk 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the choice of opting out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely it's nuts to just remove the big oragne bar and replace it with a subtle tiny red box in the corner of the screen. The Orange Bar should be in addition to the red box. No need to remove that, just restore the perfectly good functioning Orange Bar please! Ged UK 11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am utterly disgusted with the removal of the orange bar without, AFAICT, any well publicized discussion. This proclivity of developers to foist some fundamental change on the community, done as a fait accompli, is a terrible problem. We should not wake up to one of the best features of the interface removed and then have to claw it back. That is not the way it should ever work, and this is iteration number... I've lost count.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per my message below. Graham87 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The orange bar should definitely be the default option. If someone doesn't like it, let them opt out of it, but the orange bar should be the default option. Sideways713 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like it as an option. RJFJR (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong yes as a default option with an opt-out option. It can be hard enough to get new editors to start communicating and not being sure they actually saw the message, doesn't help. Lova Falk talk 15:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the option of switching off. Let everyone decide for themselves what works best for them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opt-in An opt-in option won't hurt anyone. Although, I won't enable it for myself. nerd fighter 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The new notification isn't sufficient. This isn't Facebook. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The notifications doesn't work properly. had 2 messages on my talk, but notifications showed only 1 as unread. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (I only clicked the little grey 0 to find what the hell it was...) I don't get it very much, but I like the orange bar and find it really noticable when it does appear - even during an editing session. And I really don't want an email - I almost never use that mail account. This notifications thing seems to me an easy way to miss that someone has left me a message - it is not in an area of the page I normally look at and if the notification number stays the same colour as the 0 I really doubt I'll ever notice it for weeks. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the default option at least until the developers come up with some sort of improvement to Echo's talk page notification that has been tested and accepted by the community. I'm finding it virtually impossible to deal with anons and new users at the moment because I have no idea whether they have any reasonable chance of realising that they have messages. And I'm finding it awkward to spot the things myself. Like it or not, user talk pages are right at the hub of the Wikipedia community and anything that makes them less efficient to use is retrograde. Comestic/appearance come a distant second to practical/functionality. Furthermore, all this twaddle about "surfacing" and "socialising" etc is making my brain hurt. Any chance of people speaking in plain English instead of elitist management-speak? And is there any chance that the development team will stop imposing stuff from above with little or no consultation? I am among the apparent many who were aware of Echo but thought that the bar would be retained, and now that it has gone we are presented with a fait accompli in the FAQ, along the lines of "there are no plans to reinstate the orange bar". Are developers somehow exempt from consensus? If so, should they be? - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the "there are no plans" and "yes we hear you, give it a few days and all will be well" are seriously irking. Is there any reason we can't have the orange bar back NOW, until the devs/WMF/whoever get something similar in place? Ignatzmice•talk 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - It should be optional for those users who want to retain the previous setup. In fact, I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be an option - if you don't want it, don't opt to use it. I would object to this being forced on all users, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - while I like the new system, it is not prominent enough and makes it easy to miss important messages. At the very least, the OBOD should be an opt-in preference. Also, new users who make unwanted edits may not notice it and will therefore not receive their warnings. This could lead to an increase in blocks. Oddbodz (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The orange bar should be the default for IP editors and newbies, and available as an option for others. It is the difference between "Excuse me, sir, you're making a mess of the encyclopedia" and "YO! STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE YOU'RE FUCKING UP!" — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - default to having the bar with opt-out being an option in preferences for those that don't want it. I would like to know if my talk-page was edited as soon as it happens. Additionally, the email I began to receive with the header You have a new talkpage message is not as useful as the previous Wikipedia page User talk:Valley2city has been changed by _____ and I would like that reverted as well. Valley2city^‽ 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - My heart rate does increase in fear when I see it, but in some cases that is the desired effect. How else do you notify other users (esp. newbies) to stop their actions immediately? I would vote that OMOD should be an opt-out. Another option would be to include a checkbox "Notify the user" similar to "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page" when editing in user talk page. YLSS (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notification that you have a new message needs to be very obvious and hard to ignore, especially for new editors. If someone leaves a warning for a new editor, they need to know that the new editor is going to notice it. A tiny icon at the top of the page changing from grey to dark red isn't adequate. We don't necessarily need an orange bar, but we do need to have something equally obvious. Furthermore I don't think a response of "we are considering options for addressing this" is adequate: this is a serious issue with widespread implications that should have been addressed before the feature was rolled out, not at some undefined point in the future. Hut 8.5 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, we're sure you'll love this next one!" is not okay. Howzabout we get the orange bar back NOW, and then whatever new plan can supplant it once they've got it. Gggrrrrrgrr. Ignatzmice•talk 22:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as default, with opt-out available in preferences. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. By default the orange notification that "you have new message" is very useful, especially for new editors. --Dede2008 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most emphatically yes - this new "tiny obscure thingie seemingly designed to be missed up there in the corner" is no substitute; and it looks gimmicky, like it was ganked from Google+. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Return to orange bar as default and make the new notification an option in feauture.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - anything that promotes interaction between editors is A Good Thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on — I've always loved the orange banner! Bring it back! Kurtis ^(talk) 01:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I want the return of the orange banner and I will continue to happily use my watchlist and contributions list to keep up with what I care to be informed about. Fylbecatulous talk 02:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do want. I went ten, maybe twenty pages before I noticed the weenie red box tucked away in the top corner of my page. The orange box made a statement. It let you know authoritatively that someone had conversed with you. You took notice of the orange box. You respected it. And now it's gone. At least make it the default with option to opt-out for non-IPs. Dea db eef 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by default. Personally I prefer using Echo because it looks more elegant and also has more features like notifying when someone has tagged you in a post, but it's way too easy to miss. Ideally, we would have an orange "You have new messages" bar which also advertises the fact that you can switch, e.g. "Don't like this annoying banner? Click here to change your preferences." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Need an option to turn this on, preferably on by default. I don;t get much activity on my talk page. I want something to grab my attention when a new message is there. Some of the "no" comments say its intrusive. I agree, but I want it instrusive so it is hard to miss. Let folks who don't want it opt out. Don't take it away from folks who find it useful. I also agree with the comments about IP messaging. RudolfRed (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be an option that can be allowed to be turned on or off by the user in their preferences or in their Notifications preferences. — Cirt (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must remain the default. In response to Okeyes' riddle, it works as well as it does because a lot of people despise the look of it; I think an aesthetically pleasing solution, however prominent, would be less effective. I'm comfortable with enabling people to opt out, and would consider it myself. But for me the crux of the matter is that someone who has received a talkpage message and continues editing should be treated as though they have seen the big orange bar. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm doing something wrong I'd like to know immediately so I can stop. The orange bar does just that. I always stop what I'm doing to check what it is. All the other notifications can wait. I have my watchpage which I can check myself as and when I need to. I have set up the new notification system to give me a daily summary (as a starting point - I may move that to weekly). I do not want to wait for a day or a week to be told that I have just accidently deleted someone's user page. The orange bar is important - and talkpage notices should not be confused in with other notifications. At the very least there should be an option to keep the orange bar, and if the official developers don't understand that, then someone who does understand will hopefully write up a script quickly, and let everyone on this page know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hut 8.5. The tiny notification is hardly noticeable (even when you know it's there – like several commenters above, I also didn't notice my first notifications until after a few minutes) and that is not sufficient in a context where you need to get a particular editor's attention to a message as quickly as possible (e.g. warnings). Chamal's sock ^{SockMaster•C} 06:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I trained a class of new users yesterday. As an experiment, I left each of them a talk page message while they were editing, but didn't tell them. Not one of them noticed, during the following four hours; in previous classes, people have noticed the orange bar immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd turn off the orange bar in favour of a less-prominent notification, but it or something equally prominent must be the default for new editors; it was hard enough getting them to find their talk pages as it was. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New users in particular are much less likely to notice the tiny red box, and then get blocked for failing to respond to warnings. That isn't fair. The orange bar is annoying because it needs to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On occasion good faith new users have ended up having to be blocked because they blissfully violate content policies while not noticing the big orange bar. Logically it's only going to get worse with a tiny red square. The argument that it's 2013 and we're using a 2003 interface doesn't address the important fact that we also have a "2003" contribution policy: the "modern" sites require registration and email verification before allowing folks to post, so it's relatively easy to contact them if the violate a site's Terms of Service (TOS). Since we don't require that, we need an "in your face" attention getting mechanism by default. Once users figure out that they have a talk page, then opting out of the orange bar is a cool feature. NE Ent 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The current implementation is not nearly attention grabbing enough. I would prefer something as or more prominent than the orange bar was. Preferably enormous and obnoxiously colored. This is especially important for new users. After all, it took me half an hour to notice the new Notifications tool when I logged in earlier; there seems to be little hope that a new editor would even realize it exists. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 12:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, due to my preference for browsing with javascript disabled, my notifications consist of a small number, with no red. I didn't expect the flyout to work, and I'm okay with that, but the lack of any highlighting whatsoever is an issue. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; removal of it makes redundant the entire series of IP warnings and makes it very unlikely that they're ever going to find out about their warnings. We need something appallingly obnoxious; the orange bar is not good enough.--Laun chba ller 12:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "orange bar is not good enough"? You are in fact voting to bring the orange bar back, at least as an option right? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible yes - I may be an old fuddyduddy, but the OBOD does its job and I see no valid reason to get rid of it as an option.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – I share a lot of the sentiment above. New users and IP's benefit from having a blatantly obvious notification streaming across the top of the page when someone has posted on their talk page. The new Echo notification has its advantages, but the problem, evidenced by so many 'Yes' replies thus far, is that the new format appears to branch off in an entirely new direction when it comes to talk page notification. It's not an upgrade from the previous format, but instead is an entirely new approach. A technical person in nature has a tendency to attribute the negative feedback as "resistance to change" before taking the time to fully understand the position. I think that's all we're asking for at this point: time. Let's embrace the desire to improve Wikipedia and its tools, but let's not ignore ideas and principles established throughout the process. Jumping to a different tangent as if we're starting from ground zero can project the notion of reckless abandonment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This shouldn't even be a discussion--this is an editor retention issue. A new user will NOT see the number change from one to zero. Assume this is a good faith new user who doesn't understand one of our hundreds of very important but also very non-intuitive rules, and a veteran editor is trying to tell them about this rule. Well, they're never see the message. And then the veteran editor(s) have no choice but to escalate to warnings, and eventually to a block. Now this new user is blocked after having received, from their position, absolutely no warning. Who wants to hang around a website like that? To be honest, I'd love it if non-confirmed users got an orange bar that filled the entire page. We should be increasing the prominence of this message, not decreasing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree the Product team needs to come up with a reasonable solution, both for the sake of newcomers and experienced editors. But research showed last year (or the year before, iirc?) that actually, the big orange bar only has a 50 percent clickthrough rate. It's big, and obnoxious, and it occupies the space that (on every other site) is an advert inviting people to punch the monkey and win a prize. It's actually not that effective, because users screen it out. What we need is for them to quickly develop a replacement - something that is noticeably not just more prominent but also better at getting users to pay attention. The current system, quite reasonably, I'd argue, is not being interpreted as doing that (and we don't have the data to show differently). But the OBOD isn't very good at it either. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean "clickthrough"? Does this mean "people who click on the hyperlink contained within the orange bar? How do you account for users, such as me, who go direct to their talk page when the bar appears rather than clicking on it? - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never ever, not even once I think done a click through. The bar is there to announce a message on the user page and that's where I go to find the message. So that data might be meaningless. fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say the orange bar is "obnoxious", as though that was a problem. It's meant to be obnoxious, for pity's sake, in order to get people's attention. If the design team are redesigning it to be less obnoxious, they are totally missing the point of its purpose, like changing the red traffic-light to a soothing pale lavender-pink because it's prettier and red might alarm drivers. I don't think a 50% click-through is surprising: I quite often go straight to the talk page, and not infrequently finish something else first, but I certainly take notice, exactly because it's obnoxious and persistent, and I greatly doubt that anyone "screens it out". For data on the current system, see #76 above, where Andy Mabbett reports that not one of a class of newbies noticed the new notification in four hours. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If clickthrough is going to be the measure of effectiveness, let's have the clickthrough figures for RSOL (red square of life) to compare to OBOD. There is every chance that they are a damn sight worse. Frankly, I think 50% is pretty good in my opinion. I too frequently do not click through, especially when I am working through my watchlist and can see who the message is from and how urgent it is from the edit summary. By the way, is RSOL marking the messages as read after the talk page is visisted without clicking through? Spinning Spark 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. New editors and IPs need to have this by default. They aren't going to notice the number. I have a hard time noticing the number. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably clarify here...I love the new notification system. Keep it just the way it is; just add the orange bar back as a default notification for talk page posts. (I don't oppose an option to turn it off.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really prefer it if we had the option to revert back to the old orange bar for new talk page messages while using the new notification system for the other things (mentions, etc.). Also, per Adjwilley, we really ought to have the orange bar as the default for talk page messages, since new editors aren't likely to notice it (as well as anonymous editors w/ problematic edits requiring talk page interaction. The orange bar is much more noticeable and, to be quite honest, I like it better. Call me old and out of date if you must, but I miss the orange bar already. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! At least give the option to use it. J04n(talk page) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the orange bar is hard to ignore, but not visible when working (writing) in the edit window, easy to remove when the message is retrieved (not now possible w/ the red thing staring in the face), and generally should be kept. As a side issue, having an orange bar notifiying talk page messages is benign, the current notifications in my view encourages edit warring. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I have missed several talkpage notifications. The force of talkpage notifications has been negated. Everything else is accessible through my watchlist. This has been presented as a fait accompli and there was insufficient notification and opportunity for discussion. This is not simple conservatism.--SabreBD (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if... it is the default to have it (for new users) and it can be turned off (for those of us that hate it). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - At least as an option as the number can be easily missed - I agree that the orange bar ought to be on by default for this reason. CT Cooper · talk 20:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The red box is not eye-catching enough. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nobody asked me if I wanted this notification rubbish. Give me the orange bar back please, and please allow me to turn the notification thing off altogether. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been known to overlook "tiny little number" notifications on internet forums for a year or two. The orange bar is a whole lot harder to miss. --Carnildo (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+42 - I love the orange bar. I always noticed it. It literally took me two hours to notice that I had received a message on my talk page because of the little red box. Some people may not like it, but there should be an opt-out option in Preferences. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Please, bring it back! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The tiny little notification number is very easy to miss if you're just having a quick look on WP - especially when you've got used to the big orange banner. Sure, the old banner was intrusive - but that's because it's supposed to be intrusive. Nothing worse than suddenly discovering you've had an urgent request for admin assistance sitting on your talk page for three days... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes There's no reason I can see why we shouldn't have the OBOD and Echo both running simultaneously. I like Echo a lot, but I also think that the OBOD should be standard for all users to make new messages clear and readily apparent. As many people have noted above, the whole point of a message notification is to be as intrusive as possible, and while the new features Echo introduces are really cool, the loss of the "LOOK AT ME! YOU HAVE A NEW MESSAGE. READ IT YOU FOOL" effect is a bad thing. --Jayron32 06:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definite, strong, eternity Yes The best is to extinguish Echo totally once and for all, and restore the OBOD. BTW, just placing
#pt-notifications {visibility: hidden;}
span#mw-badge-content {display: none}
li#pt-notifications {display: none}
on Special:MyPage/vector.css [or the appropriate CSS page for the skin you're using] blocks the Notifications box. Placing the code in User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js on Special:MyPage/vector.js will also restore the OBOD. Arctic Kangaroo 08:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is needed for new people here, the symbol next to the name is too subtle to notice. The orange bar is obvious when it appears. We can have it opt out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Besides the comments made about getting the attention of newcomers, I find the tiny red box doesn't get my attention sufficiently. I'm not absolutely wedded to the orange bar per se, but we know it works, so why change it? Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

Based on AS's explanation below that this a "yes" here is intended to be "yes keep the orange bar exactly as it was, forever", I'm going to say No here. Yes, I support a much-more-visible-than-currently notification option than Echo currently has, and yes, the devs need to squash the "IPs get no notification at all" bug post haste, but once that bug is fixed, Echo is a vast improvement over a bar that impedes page functionality. Any such notification should be implemented within Echo (whatever form that notification ends up taking), since it can be (presumably) done there with all the qualities of visibility and intrusiveness that OB lovers appreciate. Why preserve the legacy, more-awkward way? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really impede functionality that much? Looking at your talk page, you got about 1.3 new messages bars daily. Did the orange bar really disrupt your ability to use Wikipedia as an editor or a reader? (1.3 assumes that at no point did you have multiple messages left between checking your talk page.) --Onorem ♠Dil 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, but yes, I have often found myself opening a page, putting my mouse or eyes where I thought a link, infobox, etc would be, and instead finding myself clicking on some random block of orange that has appeared. No, it doesn't keep me from functioning and render me gibbering senselessly, but yes, it's a substandard system in my eyes to anything else that doesn't shove page content aside. Move the orange bar up to the menu bar, fine. Turn my page background orange, fine. But why mess with the placement of the content I care about, if there's a better way? That's why I asked below what you guys are so tied to - is it the orange? the rectangle? the pushing-down-page content? Many of these things are fine with me, but not to the point where I think we need to maintain a legacy system doing them when Echo can do them in an integrated manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never had that happen. I've had problems with fundraiser banners doing that, but I can't say I've ever had an issue with the orange banner disrupting my ability to navigate a page in nearly 7 years. I'm not against a better way. I'm against getting rid of the current way when it isn't being replaced by a better way. Don't break it until you have the fix ready. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had problems with the "new" toolbar loading slowly and doing that, and finally just turned off the toolbar, which I never use anyway. But I also have never had the orange bar do that. I don't think the orange bar jumps things down the way the toolbar and fund-raising banner do…does it? It's not Javascript loaded, is it? Maybe this is browser dependent? -Pete (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of us orange-bar-lovers are interested in seeing the bar available as an opt-out thing. Can't speak for others, but I at least see no reason for you to be stuck with it if you don't want it. Why would you object to an optional bar? Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with Okeyes's concern expressed above that having it as an option requires the orange bar to still be officially supported by the WMF, creating another thing to maintain in addition to Echo proper. Obviously I don't think that's enough of a concern to override providing an option (if I did, I wouldn't have created a replacement orange bar script that I have to maintain now), but it's not an illegitimate point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, because "optional" legacy features tend to...snowball, as far as user demands. If, two years down the road, the devs are ready to deply, I dunno, let's make something up, watchlists via Echo, or allow people to post to talk pages via Echo, or some tweak to the system that affects talk page notifications, the people who kept the legacy-version orange bar will pipe up: "No, you can't do that! It would break my orange bar!" or "Nooo this feature doesn't work with my orange bar, make it work!" and suddenly we have issues over deploying a new feature, because we have to accommodate legacy-users who refused the better option. This happened with skin deployments, if I recall correctly - oldie users are allowed tocontinue use Monobook as a legacy retained in the prefs, but the devs develop with an eye to Vector, because that's what everyone else uses. And when a new feature rolls out, users of legacy skins invariably raise holy hell and require extra dev (and script writer) time and resources to make things work with their preferred legacy format - because they're using something that's not developed for anymore, but they expect that something to continue working indefinitely. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They need to provide a better option before you can accuse legacy users of refusing a better option. Until then, all you are saying is they shouldn't listen to complaints now because at some point in the future, they might make a change that would lead to complaints. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The team is, I'd note, listening to complaints - I'm pushing them to come up with a resolution today. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(darn it Oliver, stop edit conflicting me!) That's a valid point, Onorem. Everything I'm saying here is predicated upon my assumption that the WMF is and will be working on a better "you've got messages" format than the current red speck. I'm confident enough in the team to assume that they're already on that, so I'm comfortable saying that a better option will be available and the orange bar will be the worse option; I suppose YMMV as far as confidence that that's happening, and if you lack confidence that they'll fix this semi-bug, I can understand how you'd feel that the OB is a better option than what you expect to see in future Echo versions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do completely believe that. The godawful hours part a bit less. (It's only 9:42 AM? boohoo.) My comment was not a reflection of how I think you have handled this issue this morning. You're putting up with me and that's good enough for me. My comment was meant for fluffernutter's method of dismissing the complaints. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9:42am...PST. I don't live on PST, I work eight hours off it. My work time today lasts until 2am my time, and (theoretically) starts at 5pm. In practise I've been working on this issue since 11am. I would consider a 15 hour workday 'godawful', yes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need it, be gone oh 2003. Btw, this seems like a terrible place to hold this vote. Most people end up here giving feedback, which is generally skewed to criticism. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where else would we hold it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let someone make a gadget. A number of editors who are used to the old format may be disgruntled, but just as with vector or a new change on Facebook, people quickly move on and forget what the old thing looked like. This is a convenient innovation and while some things should be worked out it is a very good implementation. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a Facebook analogy applies -- the way Facebook approaches UI changes is different from Wikimedia's in too many ways to count, the primary one being a matter of resources. Also, I don't think many of us are concerned about our own notifications or ability to adjust (as experienced editors), but rather the experience of new and learning users. My concerns arise principally out of concern for my students, not my own editing experience. -Pete (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can make a gadget to turn it on, I'll be happy for myself, but as Pete notes, it wouldn't help with getting the newbies' attention. Much better to make a gadget to turn it off. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from shortcomings in the deployment, this is a big step forward. The OBOD made Wikipedia look as if it were designed by sixth-graders. older ≠ wiser 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - it can be redesigned to look hi-tech (it looks fine to me, and I can't see any need for redesign) - just so long as it's there for getting through to new users. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "as well as", but not "instead of", Echo. Also, humourously, this has just been canvassed on IRC by TheOriginalSoni. — foxj 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object. It was not canvassing for two reasons. First I was asking everyone at the IRC, and not aiming it at specific users [Hence it is not canvassing]. Secondly, the only reason I went to the IRC in the first place was "ask a question", not to ask everyone to join the fight. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not long after you posted your support here, you piped up on IRC: "Anyone here wants the orange bar back?" This is pretty clear-cut canvassing. — foxj 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the poll is probably an exercise in futility. What else is new? Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per TheDJ and Bkonrad. It's about time someone came up with some notification system brings that begins to look and feel like what one would expect on other websites. Some people need to step out of their walled garden and look at the rest of the interwebs. --MuZemike 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been gone long, long ago. The new system is a vast and immediate improvement. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The day the orange bar disappeared was the day Wikipedia finally did something right. Most IPs don't communicate, aren't interested in communicating, and their talk pages go mostly unanswered. I understand and acknowledge that the community needs a way to communicate with them, and I'm sure we will eventually have one, but the orange bar isn't needed for IPs nor is it needed for registered users. The notification system is the way forward, incorporates new features that allow us to work more efficiently and communicate more effectively, and presents us with a more adaptable but non-intrusive, streamlined interface that we need. This unhealthy desire for the "good old days" when the orange bar would scream across the top of the page like a bloodthirsty eagle bearing down on its prey isn't the way forward. This unfounded nostalgia for the stress-inducing orange bar that always interrupted whatever you were doing with the burning glow of a thousand suns never helped anyone and should not be brought back. Kill it, bury it, spit on it. Goodbye and good riddance. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That orange bar is amazingly helpful to the community - all of us started out as IPs before we registered (even if only as a reader). I still regularly edit as an IP, and I am still pleased at how often I get the orange bar from someone taking the time to welcome me. Sure many IPs may not respond from an IP address, but how many of them went on to create an account? Without that data we may be doing the project a huge disservice. Manning (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OBoD is straight out of Windows 3.1. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking in a community capacity; I've had no real involvement in the project as a staffer.) I'm hugely glad that the ghastly orange box has gone. Especially because it doesn't work anyway - just like enwiki's hilariously-awful editnotices, which are similarly so 'visible' they trigger the 'this is an ad, please ignore' part of Web users' brains. I have faith that minor improvements to highlight the visibility of outstanding notifications will be sufficient. Regressing would be a huge mistake. James F. (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't want plebs bothering me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People resist change. I understand that. I believe this system is an improvement and should be default. I have no issue with an option to include the orange banner, but would prefer it was not the default. Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert back to the Orange bar for regular users. The new system is better and is least intrusive. Devs will figure out a way to prominently display the talk message notifications to IPs. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just IPs that's the problem. It's the new editors who won't think to look at their talk page, or won't notice this tiny little notification. And to all in this section - those of us who want the bar back for new editors aren't saying 'make it compulsory for all'. We're saying to make it compulsory for new users and let everyone else be able to turn it off. Not everyone has much to do with new editors. Some of us do. Not only warning them, but helping them become real editors by getting them to stop doing something they didn't know was wrong, and explaining how to do it right. I think those wanting 'not to be bothered with plebs' are taking a very short sighted view. Peridon (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the non-trivial and (you would have thought) bindingly obvious point that making talkpage notifications equivalent to everything else in Echo gives users a strong incentive to turn off the other notifications, so that talkpage messages don't get overlooked. Which then reduces the whole thing to an expensive exercise in making things worse. This aspect of Echo is really a case of shooting yourself in both feet. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In pre-Echo land, we have orange bar notifications, watch list notifications, watch lists themselves, fund-raising banners, etc. competing for attention in different ways. Users have de facto differentiation among different kinds of notifications. A unified system like Echo offers a great advantage if it pulls these things together, but a great disadvantage if it does so in a way that eliminates useful differentiation among them. The current two choices (web notification and email notification) might not be granular enough to get the job done. -Pete (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move into 2013, please? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, but the current situation is a bit like taking a wheel off the car to save on tyre wear... Peridon (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The more different options we have for users, the harder it is for new ones to acclimate. Helping new users becomes harder: "When you get a talk page message you should see that orange bar pop up." "What orange bar?" "Oh, right, most people don't have that anymore." It also inhibits future development; how much interface development has been hindered by the need to continue supporting old skins? Powers ^T 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. - hahnch e n 18:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you need a huge orange bar to tell you have a message... every time you have a message, then perhaps the accusation of this becoming a social network is really already embedded in the culture. I know...maybe we need that to be a panic bar with a sound effect of an alarm and have it blink? Nah....how about just accepting this as an improvement (which it is) and moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides being very useful for experienced editors, this is almost a necessity for newbies. Ignatzmice•talk 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Amadscientist, you have seen my talk page. Yes, there are comments that might reasonably be construed to be of a social origin (notably, concerning health issues) but I am already struggling without more prominent notification of changes because the vast majority of changes to my page are directly related to article improvement etc. The talk pages of people such as Drmies and Malleus Fatuorum are replete with many jests, jibes and arguably "social" comments but I suspect that the ratio is pretty much the same, and the placement is more high profile. We humans are social animals and you cannot get away from that but to vaguely suggest that the bar is somehow co-related to the accusation of WP becoming a social network is, well, unappealing and misplaced. Since the bar's replacement is pretty much cosmetically similar to what is in fact a social network ... the argument looks weak. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is just so much bullshit really. You are a social networker yourself Sitush. You went to Malleus to tell him you mentioned him but couldn't be bothered to let me know you responded. Not in your social loop I guess. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? You are already involved in this thread, whereas Malleus and Drmies are not. Mine was a courtesy note and, taking my cue from ANI, we don't go round informing people who are already involved that we have mentioned their name/replied etc. Your comment is procedurally invalid. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have frequently had messages which require urgent attention from me as an admin. Anything which makes it harder to see that these messages have arrived is not just a problem for me, but could lead to a situation which requires attention compounding. It isn't a case of "orange bar suggests social networking", its a case of "orange bar indicates something requiring attention". Changing it to an itty-bitty number which may indicate you've got a message, or just that someone has changed something you edited somewhere is akin to replacing a fire siren with a small indicator light that comes on when it's warm weather. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the new, less intrusive system. Also, Powers makes a good point. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to force it on me? There's nothing close to serious support for requiring the orange bar; the idea is an optional thing that you can get rid of if you don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. (But I'm real conflicted in !voting 'no', since the shocking orange bar is a real assurance that I won't forget to pick up my new orange prison suit after reading the "You have been blocked indefinitely" message that awaits.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care

I'm not much of a fan for the Notifications, but the orange bar popping out of nowhere sometimes scares me due (probably) to its color. Zappa O Mati 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care, and based on editathon experience I don't think new users notice the orange bar either, so nothing lost there. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- snarfa (talk · contribs) just made the same point to me. But I wonder if edit-a-thon experiences may skew our perceptions? A possibility: when a newbie is looking to somebody sitting next to them for guidance, he or she may be less inclined to notice any notification. Meanwhile, many of us know from onlinee experience that some newbies respond to our messages on their talk pages, and it seems pretty likely that they found out because of the big orange bar. No? -Pete (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows. But I have myself seen more than one person who was staring at the screen when the orange bar popped up. I said "oh hey, you have a message!" They said, "I do?" I said, "yeah, see the notification?" They said, "nope." So that's my anecdotal evidence. Sure, of course, some folks do notice it. Some people will notice the little red thing too. I don't think we have much evidence one way or the other about relative noticeability, unless there's some user testing out there I'm unaware of. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe, just wanted to let you know I saw this. I think it's a good discussion to have at some point, but at the moment am much more interested in the Engagement Team rolling back the elimination of a widely-used feature, to create space for a discussion of (a) what the best implementation of Echo will be, and (b) what is the smoothest and most effective path to get there. It appears to me that (b) has been tragically overlooked to this point, and I hope that changes very soon. I'll be happy to get back to a discussion of (a) once it becomes clear that (b) is on the radar. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I at least think that each user can choose to get notified of talk page edits by either the "notifications" template, or by the Orange "New Message" Bar. Whatever they choose. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think it would help here if we can narrow down exactly what the "orange bar proponents" (so to speak) are asking for. An orange bar that loads at the top of article text, exactly the way it does now (er, well, did until now)? Something that loads at the top of article text, but can be any color? Something orange, that loads wherever? Anything highly visible, with no particular preference for whether it happens in the "menu bar" or the article text? Personally, I think there should be at least an option for a highly-visible, colored notification (larger than a small red box) that displays by default, but I'm not tied to orange, I quite dislike things loading on top of article text and shoving down the content I'm trying to read, and I don't think we need to preserve a legacy, clunky feature exactly as it was to please a small subset of users when we have a better-integrated way of doing the same thing. Unless you can spell out a bit more what you're asking for, AutomaticStrikeout, I'm not sure where that puts me in your yes/no choices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking if people should at least have the option of using the orange bar. I haven't seen any reason why it should be replaced and I think that at the very least, people out to be given a Preferences option restoring their orange bar. I'm not saying that it has to remain standardized, but I think it should be an option. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every time we create a preferences option, we create something else that needs to be maintained - even in cases like this where maintenance is probably trivial or non-existent, it sets a bad precedent. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would argue that the bad precedent was set when the orange bar was unilaterally removed without community consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Removing longstanding basic features like this is a very bad thing, and WMF needs to start setting the precedent of restoring basic features that it shouldn't have removed. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make one thing clear, I don't have a problem with most of this new system. A lot of it has the potential to be incredibly beneficial. On the whole, it's not a bad feature. The talk page notification issue is all I'm concerned about. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the color that's the problem – it's the prominence. WMF removed a very, very obvious form of notification, without any consensus whatsoever (or even warning). No-one really cares about the orange vs red; we care about having features not unilaterally disabled. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big +1 to Ypnypn. But also, the problem is any sudden and unexplained change to the one notification system we've had for many years, which many thousands of people are used to using. I have no huge attachment to the orange bar, but if it's going to be removed, it needs to be done in a way that respects the end user. Sudden and unexplained removal (and by "explained" I mean explained in the interface, where those confused by it will encounter the explanation) is a huge problem. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The orange bar is intrusive for good reason. By all means provide an option for experienced users to turn it off (though I, personally, would not take that option), but for the reasons why the default needs to be something at least as conspicuous, consider:

The happy schoolchild who has got at Wikipedia in his break and started writing "Poop" everywhere. Not infrequently, that type of IP vandal stops after a {{uw-v2}} or {{uw-v3}} warning. Unless there is something eye-catching to draw his attention to a warning message, the first feedback he will be aware of is a block message.
The new good-faith user, unfamiliar with Wikipedia - for instance, a student who has been told to edit Wikipedia for a class project. Those newbies are often very hard to communicate with - I have the impression that many of them think of WP as a website to edit, not as a community they are joining and need to engage with. They are not familiar with the Wikipedia screen, may not know they have a talk page, and may well miss a small red blob. The orange bar says "HEY!!! We need to talk!" and that is exactly the message we need to give.

JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We knew that talk page notification visibility was going to be an issue, but we decided to go with the simplest implementation (to avoid complicating the UI/prefs if possible), and see what the community's response was. There were no objections raised during the beta period on MediaWiki, but of course English Wikipedia is a very different animal. Given the responses here, it seems clear that we're going to have to make talk page notifications more visible, which seems like a reasonable request. Give us a little bit of time and we'll come up with something. Speaking in my personal capacity as a long-time Wikipedian, I've always thought the orange bar of death was clunky and obnoxious. But that's just my personal opinion :) Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Oliver concisely put it above, "orangeness" and "sameness" are different attributes. I don't think the orange bar needs to survive forever, but it's important to have it there now until there is a plan in place for a smooth transition. (I'll be starting a 6 week class on Wikipedia next week, and it's no fun for first-time users to have turbulence around basic features.) Is it a major technical challenge to simply reinstate the orange bar for the "talk page" notification item, and gradually phase it out in favor of the new feature, along with clear tooltips etc.? -Pete (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder how many of the opposers of the bright bar actually spend time dealing with new users. Fluffermutter does, but the others I don't recognise from my normal area of deletion - where explanations, cautions and warnings take up a lot of time. They don't always work - but if we have don't have a good clear 'you have a message' thing of whatever sort, we won't get through to any of them. I've been here five years. It took a while this morning before I noticed the little red thing, and a while after that - having started to wonder why I had messages but no warning - that I found out what it was. New users are more concerned with what they're doing to worry about little red pimples. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the rather ironic experience an hour or so ago of reloading my watchlist and realizing that someone had left me a talkpage message and - surprise, surprise! - the tiny red box had failed to get my notice. No question we need some version of "big honkin' notification here" message, absolutely for newbies and probably for us old-timers as well. I figure if we give them a little time, though, the devs will figure out a way to make Echo honk, rather than making me have to continue to rely on the "Oh god what am I in trouble for now" orange bar of doom - and at that point, the OBoD will be vestigial. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, what do you think I do here if not dealing with new users and deletion? DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon wondered whether opposers of the bright bar spent time dealing with new users. I don't think you are in that category. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are a regular at CSD. I learned a heck of a lot from you when I was patrolling Edits be New Accounts. And since. You weren't in my mind for that comment. I'm referring to those who don't have to deal with 'plebs' and 'newbies'. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us calling for the return of the orange bar are doing so (at least in part) out of informed concern for new users. (I am teaching an intro class on Wikipedia.) It seems to me that in evaluating consensus, we should be disregarding the poorly thought out arguments -- and there are plenty on both sides here -- and focusing our attention on the best points. Peridon, your comment -- while well-intentioned, I'm sure -- points in the direction of ad hominem arguments and, ultimately, unnecessary drama. -Pete (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from the "No" opinion section: James F. (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection

It seems to me that most of the "no" votes [when this was posted, there were 6] are overlooking an important point: few if any of us asking for the orange bar back are seeking that as a permanent solution. I think just about everyone accepts that the general approach of Echo is an improvement -- it's just an improvement that needs to be implemented in a careful manner.

In other words "put the orange banner back now" is not the same as "put the orange banner back forever." Establishing a context in which we can compare the features side by side would be a strong step toward making a calm and consensus-driven decision. -Pete (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, I am one of those "few" (assuming in good faith that "few" is a fair representation). I love both the idea and implementation of Echo. I also completely understand the desire to not be seen as yet another way of grabbing people's attention, and that streamlining is in general a good thing.

The point of the new system appears to be to ensure that people can more efficiently navigate their way through the maze of Wikimedia, keeping on top of things that are important to them. It also accomodates editors with different methods of keeping track. Some editors would go through their notifications once per session, if that. Others would try to keep that little number at zero as often as possible. That difference in approach, that very flexibility that Echo tries to give different types of editor, is the root cause of the problem with removing the orange bar.

Talk page messages are unique. If I go to someone's talk page, more often than not my hope is that they will read it before their next edit. More often than not, a message that can wait can be posted elsewhere. When a warning/request to cease editing and start discussing is posted, there are circumstances in which failure to heed that call could lead to hot water up to and including a block, and this isn't exclusive to IPs or newly registered editors.

So having made the fairly mainstream case for doing something special for talk page notifications, why do I go a step further and say that the orange bar should remain in the long term? Because it is absolutely HIDEOUS, and something that most people want to get rid of as soon as possible. I would cite the clampdown on OBoD spoofs as evidence. Why were they so annoying? Because old and new editors alike saw them and clicked on them immediately, in large numbers, some believing that the link on the other side was worthy of their immediate attention, others wanting to get rid of the ugly bar as soon as possible and ending up at something even less appealing to the eye.

Ultimately, the question for developers and the community alike is where the balance lies. In life as well as on-wiki, I lean heavily towards getting the job done as effectively as possible, regardless of other considerations. That said, I accept that "regardless of other considerations" puts me at one end of the spectrum, and don't have a clue where the middle-ground is. Spend time and resources on a more elegant solution if you must, and if you go down that route I concede that you are likely to find a compromise that achieves consensus. That said, I'm certain that there is nothing you can implement to do the job more effectively than the OBoD. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up with this: I've made some improvements to my orange bar of doom script; it doesn't use cookies any more, so most of the problems people were having should be fixed now. As a bonus, it uses the Echo API now, so visiting your talk page will automatically clear the Echo notification for your talk page as well as the OBoD. Big thanks to Legoktm, Kaldari, et al. for helping me figure it out! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infomation only, I installed the script for the OBoD (I have custom .CSS rules for mine) and everything works fine, even the custom rules. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another followup: I believe I just fixed a bug that prevented it from working in older browsers, notably IE8. As ever, please let me know if any other bugs turn up. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it should have been

The proper method for rolling out such a train-wreck as ECHO would have been to:
- Do alpha testing
- Beta testing
- Roll out to smaller wikis
- Deploy to enwiki as an optional opt-in feature
- Extensive testing and feedback over an extended period (several months)
- Switch ECHO to default notification system for new users, while leaving it opt-in for those veteran users.
- If at some point after this ECHO finally doesn't suck, discuss the options with the community about phasing out the old system.
Developer actions via edict with such a large impact should not be possible. The reaction that the developers are taking (you are screwed the OBoD will not come back regardless of consensus because we say so) is appalling. Given the large amount of issues ECHO caused the update should have immediately been rolled back and the devs should have gone back the the drawing boards to fix it. This IP editors get zero notice about talk page messages for 24 hours is really problematic. How many users ended up getting blocked/where deterred from editing because they where blocked for disruptions because they didnt get the talk page note saying what they where doing was inappropriate? Werieth (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What large amount of issues, sorry? I see two. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick scan up the page and I see no less than 7 issues being tracked in bugzilla. Werieth (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you think we shouldn't deploy on enwiki until there are zero bugs? That's literally never going to happen; there are far too many possible things that can go wrong on individual wikis, from site-specific CSS to use-specific CSS to browser choices.

I'd argue strongly that Echo does not 'suck'. This specific feature, I agree, is worse than what it replaced. I warned the team that this was a problem with it. Right now, I'd suggest we all calm down and see what they'll come up with as a solution. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is called incompetence, you do not break a top 10 website and then go home and hope to fix it the next day. I have been in the IT, software development process for many years. Before I put my name on a product and stamp it for release I make sure that it is more than 50% functional. When deploying a major upgrade I assume Murphy's law and have fallback plans. I dont go home until the system is functional. Yeah it might not be 100% bug free but it will not leave a major breakage while I go home and watch TV and relax. If crap has hit the fan its a matter of all hands on deck, or rolling back the updates until such time as a postmortem can be preformed and we can figure out what went to hell. Given the fact that this is one of the top 10 websites in the net I would hope that the paid techs who rolled this out would be competent enough to revert the changes if a patch to fix a major flaw wasnt implemented ASAP. Werieth (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what's called 'the point at which I leave the conversation'. Please do let me know when you can be reasonable about the issues. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see how it is, when a reasonable deployment process that will work is proposed in the aftermath of a train wreck that you orchestrated you decide to leave the conversation? I never said that it had to be bug free, in fact if you take a look at the plan that I suggested there is a period of several months where bugs can be identified and fixed before shoving it down the throat of your users. You dont just make a single mass switchover, take a look at the WMF move to ashburn they had everything but the master servers already tested prior to the migration. Even then they planned a fallback to revert to the tampa servers if there where problems. I really dont see the forsight and good planning that was shown there in this project. Werieth (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, it's the bit where you start referring to people as incompetent. In what world does that aid the conversation or make participants more likely to listen to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am unsure what else to call it. Any other term that comes to mind is far more derogatory. I was just attempting to describe the actions as I saw them. Why wasnt something like what I proposed implemented? Instead something half baked and full of issues was thrown out and left running for an extended period of time without fixing it. Werieth (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"One night" is not an extended period of time. We have fixed the IP issue already, and will be iterating improvements to the general UI problems over the coming day. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's context dependent. In this context, I agree with Werieth that one night is a very, very, very extended, long period of time. -Pete (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Werieth, Okeyes is telling you that he agrees with you, that he and the dev team are doing their best, and that they're going to be working on it, even if a bit later/slower than you wanted. Is there any value in continuing to hurl nasty words at them telling them how terrible they are, rather than just describing what you see as the faults in the software and/or development system? Nobody at the WMF or among the devs is trying to do anything badly or to offend you, so please give them the courtesy of speaking to them as if they're human beings. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter, given the fact that this isnt the first time recently that the devs have unilaterally implemented features that have gone against the communities wishes. (see watchlist-gate within the last year). Given the backlash that a minor change like that caused in comparison to this change it was very poorly thought out, and even more poorly implemented. In most paid positions this kind of screwup would cost them their job. I am not asking for that, rather I am trying to figure out why common sense and careful roll-out did not happen. Given the impact that minor issues can snowball on a site this big a proper reaction would have been to revert the roll-out, get feedback about the bugs that where discovered and develop a phased implementation that wouldn't cause such a large scale disruption. Standard practice when updating/migrating software in a large environment is to do it in small manageable waves where testing can be reformed, feedback can be assessed, and issues resolved before full migration. Measured implementation and testing practices are key to smooth deployments. Like I said before compare this process to the data center move, things where extensively tested prior to the move and there was a fallback plan if there where issues to mitigate extended down time. In this case there wasnt a fallback plan or if there was it was ignored, causing a major disruption to site operations. I am asking why logic and a practice of ensuring minimal downtime was ignored here. I am also appalled by the fact that the limited number of devs can say screw what the community wants, if we what to add a cool hip new feature, regardless of how broken it is we will and you can all go to hell since the old method will never come back. Personally I find that JavaScript intensive web pages are problematic especially when tools like resource loader are used which makes filtering out annoying javascripts impossible. I remember when BITS was first introduced it was geolocating and doing other things that easily added 3-10 seconds to the load time of a web page. I just opened up my browser settings and blocked that script. Since everything is being minified its no longer possible. I tend to prefer the monobook skin due to the fact that its not bloated with all the "cool" looks and bloated javascipt that vector uses. Remember KISS when developing. Werieth (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The value would be in underlining that the problems caused could and should have been avoided, and that lessons should be learned about how this went live. Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of issues is probably a distraction. It's the significance of the issues. No transition from the orange bar planned out? That may be just one issue, but it is…well, I think "large" would be an understatement. (I think there is a lot of quality in Echo, but as has happened before, a poor rollout strategy will sink you regardless of how good the core feature is.) -Pete (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about anything that Echo has added. I use my watchlist and contributions tab to keep track of those things. I care about what it subtracted. None of the new notifications are worth getting rid of the prominent talk page notification IMO. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Pete. The IP issue alone makes it "really suck" unfortunately. Most of the policies for editors making test edits revolve around them being warned on their talk page - without that there is a huge risk of resorting to mass amounts of blocks to good faith editors instead of a simple talk page message. That said, I fully expect a fix to be deployed within the next day or so (or to see it taken down temporarily). Also, to be fair, I've seen plenty of buggy things deployed over the years on en-wiki. Like it or not it does tend to be a testing ground for things like this despite being a huge website. Ryan Norton 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the fix is scheduled to go out in a couple of hours (crossing fingers!). I spent a chunk of thisd morning poking people at godawful hours to secure a deployment window. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I've already blocked a bunch of two-time-vandalism IPs because there wasn't any way to tell them to stop. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the issue with IP notifications is fixed now.--Eloquence * 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Just tested it, it works as expected. Still concerned about the orange bar in other contexts, as discussed above -- but glad to know this issue has been resolved. -Pete (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you! Inability to communicate with IPs was a really serious problem, and it is excellent that you have been able to resolve it so promoptly. As you have said that he orange bar will not be retained, I presume this is a temporary fix: what is the longer-term proposal for IPs? JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

I note that User:TheOriginalSoni has now turned this discussion into an RfC. Ignoring the substantial problems with trying to formalise something after a lot of conversation has gone on - frankly, you need to start an entirely new discussion if you want the outcome to mean anything - and the long lasting time of an RfC, Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens. I'd strongly suggest that someone who isn't me simply remove the RfC tag, because it's not going to lead to a different outcome, I'm afraid :/.

I woke up this morning to a set of emails from the team, basically outlining "we think we have a solution, but we'd like to A/B test it against Echo to make sure it's actually an improvement". I'll have a more full update and some screenshots to share in a bit, but I wanted to try and be transparent about what the team is doing (or, at least, what they report to me they're doing). I should have more from them in a bit :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RfC now. 83 support the orange bar, 19 oppose, and a lot of the opposes are saying they want the orange bar back temporarily. I suggest the WMF team get the rods out of their behinds and reinstate the orange bar, even if only until they roll out whatever "fix" they have in store. Ignatzmice•talk 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something I have any control over, although, trust me, I have made clear to them that we need a result sooner rather than later. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okeyes, I'd strongly suggest that you let the RfC continue, so that the community's consensus on the matter becomes clear. Whether the WMF acts on that consensus is up to the WMF. Besides, currently the RfC seems to suggest that something (not necessarily the orange bar) better than the current notification is needed, and I gather from your comments on this page that something is in development/QA right now. I doubt stopping the RfC now is going to score any points for the new release, the dev team or the WMF. Chamal ^T•C 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stop the RfC; it's not within my power :). I'm trying to persuade the Product team to fix this quickly, because I don't want Echo to become exclusively/specifically about this issue, and there's a risk it will. Part of that, however, is trying to stop the situation from escalating, and also (as a general point) trying to avoid users wasting their time contributing to a discussion that will not, simply via a template, be any more or less useful or binding on the Product team than it was before. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens." I really hoped that after the ACTRIAL row Erik and the WMF would not return to the attitude of "We've decided what's best for you, and anyone who doesn't like it can go jump in the lake, because whatever you say, and however many of you say it, we're not listening", but here we are again. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with "we won't turn it on again permanently", if they would just turn it on again temporarily whilst developing improvements to Echo that are at least as good as the Orange Bar. I think this refusal is disappointingly pigheaded and disrespectful of the community. It's the sort of behaviour you expect from a corporate like Facebook, not from a Foundation which is basically there to (a) run the tech and (b) keep the volunteers happy so that the tech serves a purpose! Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree! The WMF and their techies need to remember they work for the editors - not the other way around. We've had this same struggle before, about a year ago over some really dreadful talk page changes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping the RFC is not going to prevent the discussion getting bogged down in this issue. What will stop it is temporarily turning the orange bar back on, then we can move on to other things and start congratulating the devs for a wonderful notification system while they think about how to properly incorporate the functionality of OBOD. I have made clear to them that we need a result sooner rather than later—that's not soon enough, there have been over 600 blocks in the last 24 hours and most of them will not have seen the warnings. This is an urgent matter that requires dealing with NOW. Spinning Spark 06:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I am sorry if I sound ignorant, but what is this Orange Bar that is being discussed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your question is serious? It is the orange bar across the top of the screen saying "You have a new message" which, until Tuesday, used to warn you of the arrival of a new message on your talk page. You will no longer get that; instead, a small blob just to the right of your username on the top line will turn from grey to red to signal a new talk page message or various other events. See Wikipedia:Notifications and Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ for more detail. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, an option that does not have a dependency on the devs is to turn my script into an official gadget; this has been suggested by others, particularly MBisanz below. I've just fixed the last of the bugs that's been reported to me; once I hear back from the affected user (User:Nyttend), I won't be unwilling to have this happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful for experienced users who know about gadgets but (unless the gadget was ON by default, and I doubt whether that would be allowed) it does nothing for the IPs and newbies who most need to be made aware of a talk page mesage. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't here for the Watchlist War, but it seems an admin was able to edit the site-wide CSS to revert the WMF's changes. Supposing we could confirm User:Writ Keeper's orange bar is (mostly) bug-free, and also supposing we could make it very easy for users to turn it back off again, I would totally support something like that happening here. We wouldn't turn off Echo, only import that bit of script. Although come to think of it, while it makes sense for there to be a site-wide CSS page, it's not as entirely obvious that there's a site-wide JavaScript page.... Ignatzmice•talk 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor, new editor, argument for retaining it for those editors sounds like a sound reasoning IMHO. If there is a way to allow more experienced editors (say who have made more than 500 constructive edits) to opt out of its display, I think we should go with that solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, turn on the gadget now. Even if this is only very short term, we have a serious problem right now. But no registered user should be prevented from opting out. If they have enough experience/clue to work out how to turn it off, they are probably aware of the consequences of doing so. In any case, it is their responsibility to read their messages. What we are concerned about here are the IPs and new users who have no clue about the messaging system and were completely unaware they had any messages to read - until they attempt to edit and discover I have blocked them that is. I really don't want that to be the first communication they have from me. Spinning Spark 14:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the script is here. I suggest that, if this is to actually happen, Writ Keeper should update it so that the bar says something like See the documentation page if you want to turn off this bar and the doc page should have instructions on going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and unchecking the correct box. Or the script could be moved to a centralized location, and then anyone with sufficient competence could add that. I don't know what the protocol is for gadgets. Ignatzmice•talk 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User mentions have potential...

With this edit, my bot account mentioned me without even visibly showing my username and I still received a notification. This could potentially be used for a form of "talkback", where a special template could be used to notify the person that you are replying to. For example, a user replying to me could put something like {{Reply|The Anonymouse}} at the beginning of their reply. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already found myself using this. +1 for killing big blue talkbacks once and for all. Theopolisme (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Flow will actually handle this too, but it's good we could come up with half a solution (albeit accidentally!) so early :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to using notifications to elimininate the need for talkback. -Pete (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - what is this Swiss flag thing with numbers on? I've seen odd things in Afd pages and so on on other language Wikipedias, but not this one. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Google+. There's a similar template at {{like}}. Ignatzmice•talk 21:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think you'll find me using it, then... Peridon (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:+3 I like the idea of {{talkback}} going bye-bye. Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bot be coded to migrate all instances of {{reply}} to {{talkback}} so this opportunity can appear in that template? Ryan Vesey 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could do that with AWB, if it was agreed to be a good idea. Technical 13 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More-over, I think this proposal would be best served if all of the templates listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Talkback&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 where changed to use {{Talkback}} directly (and then fix the template itself to have it stop telling people they can use {{tb}}). Technical 13 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  The shorter the better. {{tb}} seems good. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anonymouse, Theopolisme, Peteforsyth, Technical 13, and Ryan Vesey: What do you guys think of this {{replyto}} template? Just a little experiment :) Should it also have a 'hide=true' parameter? Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! The hide parameter could be useful. Also, maybe we could get {{Rt}} to redirect to it. Finally, should this template be made for substituting or transcluding? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the hide parameter. Personally, I like transcluding it. It keeps the discussion easier to read in the Wikitext, but maybe some people will want to subst. Either way, it should work. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of {{rt}}, I redirected {{ping}} (which was a virtually unused talkback redirect). I'm wondering if the 'hide' option will be confusing to people, as they will come to the conversation looking for where they are mentioned, and might be confused if they can't see it. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: At first glance I like it, but I am getting a little concerned about the number of common use cases being brought up for discussion, that seem to be coming across as new ideas. I'd like to wrap my head around the overall structure a little better, before commenting about specific ones. Above all, I'll be much more comfortable discussing new features once previous features are unbroken. -Pete (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for a mention to notify all watchers of a page? For example, Anna Frodesiak, who is ill, posted a message requesting talk page stalkers. Is it conceivable that she could activate a template that would notify all watchers of her talk page? Or something along those lines. For example, lets say a user goes on vacation. Could they notify all watchers of their user talk page through a global mention? Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cool idea, although I wonder if people would consider it spammy. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what about user status updates that can interface with notifications that will allow watchers to opt-in to these updates? Viriditas (talk) Today, 23:36 (UTC−4)

Notifications for updates in important articles

Could you please tell me if this project plans to add notifications for updates in some important articles (according to my additions). I think it would be very helpful to me. Thanks, New worl (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New worl Hi there, Do you mean that we send you a notification when an image has been added/ article has significantly grown/ template has been added? to an article that you have classified as important. We have some ideas around this but there is also potential overlap with the watch-list here. My focus on this project was the user experience so it would be useful to get some details from you. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vibhabamba. I mean notifications for top articles. As you know watchlist may contain hundredths of articles. So I think notification would be very helpful if I can put alerts on some, say, 10 most important articles. New worl (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links on notification pages

Resolved

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49924

Can someone have a look at the way links for namespaces like File and Category are linked on notifcation pages (not the fly out page) but Special:Notifications. Currently the linkage is [[File:Foo.jpg]] so the image is displayed on my notification page rather than just a link by [[:File:Foo.jpg]]. If it's the same for catgeory and template links, this could lead to some interesting displays. NtheP (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which type of notification specifically caused this for you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only edit revert at the moment. NtheP (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed on English Wikipedia momentarily. Kaldari (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP notifications

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49922

Resolved

According to the FAQ, IPs don't use the new notifications system, and the system has replaced the old Orange Bar Of Doom. Does this mean that IPs now receive no notification when their talk pages have been changed? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just tested it. No orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this, as soon as humanely possible--talk about jarring oversights. Theopolisme (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that this is true. Are you quite, quite sure? Can anyone else confirm? This would be just mindboggling. Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it again. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second test complete. No orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a bug to get a definitive conclusion or response. (I'm still thinking you must have made some mistake... this just can't be really so...!) Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake, and if you look at my user history, I tried two different IPs just to be sure. IPs don't get the orange bar. Should I try it for a third time? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're quite sure that after leaving the message and logging out you were using that IP and should have had the orange bar - then I guess it is so. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried two more times. Nothing. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've just tested it as well - definitely no notification. An optimist on the run! 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the reports about the orange bar are correct, Notifications is broken. I sometimes see a new editor (possibly an IP) do something, and I give them a welcome with a message explaining some point (example). I'm not going to do that if it is highly likely that the user will never notice my message (and I'm not going to make a second account to test what it looks like to a new user—perhaps a screenshot would save some trouble). What is going to happen when a user gets some {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}} warnings? Again, I'm not going to bother warning an IP or throwaway account if it is likely I'm wasting my time. The orange bar tells the IP/account that someone has noticed their fun, and that's often all that is required for them to turn their attention elsewhere. I do not think a notification will do that. Also, will a notification be regarded as sufficient warning for a repeat to result in a block? Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the notification is not enough (though I don't think it is); IP users don't get the notification (I have just confirmed by experiment) so they are not told at all that they have a message. The whole vandal-warning system has become useless. This is a disaster. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also this would lead to a potential loss of reformed vandals who stop vandalizing at a level-1 or level-2 warning since they won't be aware that they were warned.. TheStrike Σagle 11:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already found the cause and it looks like a simple oversight, if I'm correct, this likely will be fixed after San Francisco wakes up. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully. But this issue just underlines my #Are_you_nuts.3F complaint: if it had been made clear that the Orange Bar was being removed, and that Echo was only for registered users, then "what happens to unregistered users" might have come up as an issue sooner. Excitement about a new system is great, but it's no substitute for documentation. See also my general remarks on user interface changes here. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, the FAQ says "We're not planning to bring the OBOD back nor to make it available as a preference". Hopefully this was just someone being glib, and not an official position that will never change. This would have been almost painless if the notification system had been rolled out exactly as it was, except making the OBOD opt-out. As is, it's screwed up IP communication, and insulted other users who might want it for no apparent reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was made by the deputy director, so I suspect it may indeed be an official position :/. The IP communication bug is being fixed, and we're actively talking through how to increase the prominence of the notifications for talkpage messages. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got to love how the WMF people impose things on the community regardless of our opinions. Okeyes, what suggestions do you have for fixing the deputy director communication bug? Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, added this morning by User:Eloquence. Bug tracking added. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the OBOD in its original form isn't coming back (except, if absolutely necessary, as a temporary fix) doesn't mean that we're not taking this issue seriously. We're considering multiple non-OBOD possibilities for raising the prominence of messaging-related notifications, and several have been raised here.--Eloquence * 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a lovely way of dismissing everyone's concerns. Would you mind listening to the community? Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like optimists... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riight. You could have so easily taken the sting out of this by bringing back the Orange Bar temporarily, whilst a better alternative is developed at a calm and even leisurely pace. Are you scared that you won't be able to develop a better alternative? This is ridiculous, and frankly more than a little disrespectful of what users actually want (which is at minimum to be given a better alternative, and since you can't magic that overnight, to go back to the status quo ante until you have one to give). Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed now for IP users. Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just tried it, the orange bar is back for IPs. Please don't remove it again unless it is replaced by something at least as intrusive, so that it is possible to get the attention of an IP vandalising or making problematic edits. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT fixed for non-autoconfirmed accounts. Is there a way that could easily be added back in? Seems obvious... Ignatzsock•talk 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-auto-confirmed accounts should get standard Echo; the IP problem was that they temporarily had neither Echo nor the Orange Bar. Rd232 ^talk 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes. My bad. Still, as I (and others) have said upthread, it would be good for newbies as well to have the big in-your-face notification.... Ignatzmice•talk 21:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echo blacklist?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49946

Is there a way for Echo to ignore edits by certain bots—namely, User:HostBot, whose edits (example) include a link to an unsuspecting host's talk page? Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly related this topic higher up. Though this bot leaves 'major' edits apparently. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick on User:HostBot. This issue is already being discussed by the involved hosts → WT:Teahouse/Host lounge#HostBot Messages and notifications. I'm much more concern with being able to remove User:SineBot from my notifications. Technical 13 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to exempt MiszaBot III, too - I don't need to be notified when it does its regular archive of my talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting a link

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49932

I'm using the modern skin and the notifications "menu" does not drop down, nor am I taken to Special:Notifications when I click on it. Right now if I click the number goes to zero but nothing displays. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the default format for the notification button is sharply out of line with the rest of the menu. Not urgent, but it stands out like a sore thumb even when there are 0 messages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this bug report totally answers my question further down this page in a sub section titled "bug?'. I use the Modern skin and I have the second problem listed on the bugzilla page. I only see part of the right section of the flyout at best. it's flown too far off my page to be any use except to mindreaders. So I'm asking as was iterated on this report: can I have this ECHO dratted thingamajig disabled since I'm not going to alter my skin just for this or anything else actually. Thanks muchly... Fylbecatulous talk 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I reiterate that I have IE 10 on Windows. So from the bugzilla report there is no tinker available for us hapless folk. :(( Fylbecatulous talk 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the devs

I've mentioned a fair amount of changes I'd like to see on this page, but I want to make sure that those don't overbear my support for echo as a whole. This is one of the biggest dev side improvements I've seen since the new pages feed someone needs a huge round of applause for the work he's done on bringing both of those tools to us. There are a number of other editors who need thank you's and I wish I knew who all of those are, but in any case, thanks. Ryan Vesey 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much; this has totally brightened my day :). Credit goes to the dev-team - User:Kaldari, User:Bsitu and User:LWelling. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget Brandon Harris for kicking it off for real 1,5 year ago. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- as I've said above, but might be obscured by my concerns about the rollout, I am generally impressed with the core feature. Kudos to those who have made it happen. -Pete (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks everyone for the work. This page has been a good example of rollout, feature explanation, and lots of tweaks/bugs/request to be considered. Huge amount of effort toward a very good and I think useful feature expansion. Way to think out of the box! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed designing this interface experience because of the development attitude to this project. Cheers for User:Kaldari, User:Bsitu and User:LWelling They moved really quickly and were always willing to try stuff out and iterate. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like I said above, for the most part I like it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks for doing a big new feature, it's a Good Thing. Just please learn something from the transitional problems, caused quite unnecessarily. Rd232 ^talk 20:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<echo> Thanks to @BH, VB, RK, BS, LW, OK & all for the sweet new feature. And to everyone leaving feedback to make things better. – SJ + 20:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks devs for Notifications! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 21:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your kind words, which mean a lot to us! As product manager for Notifications, it has been a true pleasure to be working with such a wonderful, responsive development team. I am also very grateful to community members for all your good insights on this page :) Based on this helpful feedback, we're preparing a number of improvements which will be releasing in coming days, in an iterative fashion. In the meantime, check out today's blog post, for a bit more context about this project. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give my thanks to the developers for their hard work implementing the designers' ideas. Assuming I've got the terminology right there. When I got my minor qualification in systems analysis/design there were analysts, designers and programmers... (Found it not my scene - too bloody minded - and got the hell out.) Peridon (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing Wikipedia into 2013. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old notifications

Like pretty much everyone else, I really like the core idea, and I'm thankful to have it. I'm simply curious about old notifications — is there some way to get rid of them, or will they just sit there indefinitely? I've looked everywhere without finding the answer to my question, which by the way isn't at all a big deal; I'd just like to know what to do or to know that it can't be done. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you get new notifications, they fall down into the archive page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean: will going to Special:Notifications show everything by default or will old ones disappear eventually by themselves, and is there a way to cause old ones to disappear from Special:Notifications? Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't currently have a set lifetime, but presumably at some point they will get one to stop stored data growing forever. How long would an old one potentially be interesting to you? A week? A month? A year? LWelling (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not very long; I'll generally deal with it and forget it. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that there ARE notifications is probably the most important aspect here. If they have become automatically archived, then that's likely fine, as long as it tells you that it has automatically archived something, I presume. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I would like to see the inline notifications window remove notices as soon as I've acknowledged them. A link to Special:Notifications would be sufficient for accessing old notices at a later point, I would think. Reso lute 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, "Special:Notifications is a pretty replacement of Special:Log". See mw:Talk:Echo_(Notifications)/Feature_requirements#Bad_requirements:_reinventing_logs_and_private_notifications. --Nemo 08:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you quoting yourself? Kaldari (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

API access to Echo?

Hey again, after a couple users were running into trouble with my OBoD script, one suggested using Echo as the driver for the message display, rather than keeping track of things within the script itself. It looks like the entries in the notification widget themselves aren't directly accessible unless the widget has been opened, and just going by the number that's displayed would catch a bunch of things that aren't actually talk page posts. So, is there an API or something that a script could make a call to, to find out whether there are new notifications and what kind of notifications they would be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Search the API help page. It's meta=notifications (Ctrl+F 'Echo'). --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What page is that? I'm not seeing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, api.php. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, I was expecting it to be documented at Mediawiki. Silly me. *rolls eyes* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should rewrite the main MediaWiki api pages to start with pointing people to /api.php. The system works so well, and it always represents whatever is actually the available api on an instance of MediaWiki (instead of the theoretically available api). In the past most of WMF ran the same software and the auto generated documentation was much less complete, but it has totally overtaken the MediaWiki hosted documentation in my opinion —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: The Echo API is very limited currently (and mostly designed to facility the flyout). I would suggest filing a bug listing what you would like from such an API, and we'll do our best to accommodate. You may also be interested in Template:Bug. Kaldari (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Question about Secondary Accounts

We, the user community, have been asked to test Echo. However, the testing instructions advise creating a second account. Wikipedia has special policies on legitimate alternate accounts, and those policies are long. Could someone provide a summary? In particular, what sort of disclosure is expected both on the primary user page and on the secondary user page? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just make a post on your alternate account's user page (using your primary account, so we know it's legitimate), saying that "this is an alternate account of such-and-such, used for testing". If you're just testing things in user space, it's not a big deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that making real edits in article space (to improve an article) or in article talk space (to discuss an article) can be done from one's primary account with the secondary account receiving the notices. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you compare two methods for talk page message notifications

A number of people seem to be saying OBOD notifications are better than Echo notifications as they are presented in this version. I'm curious what "better" means, or more generally, if you had two ways to present that message how would you decide which to keep?

Prominence seems to be the main factor being mentioned, but if it were that simple we'd adopt a full screen blinking red notification and call it a day. It's obviously not that simple, but is it a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

Is click through rate by new users a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

Is click through rate by experienced users a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

How else would you compare two proposals? LWelling (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LWelling, do I understand right from the discussion above that you're working on this project? I think it would help if you could set up a user page with a sentence or two about your role. Otherwise it's difficult to distinguish a question like this one from idle rumination. -Pete (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's not idle rumination. I'll put up a two line bio. LWelling (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Pete (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, turn the Orange Bar back on temporarily (let's say explicitly for no more than 3 months, if that's what it takes for WMF to agree). Then we can calmly and happily chew over how exactly to come up with something better than (a) the current Echo talkpage notification system and (b) the Orange Bar. Deal? Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Address the pain point first, then it will be much easier to talk about a general approach. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+2 I tried to convey the same at the IRC. Didn't work. Let's hope this one does. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the orange bar, we knew it was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we are lucky enough to be able to pick it out of the 80-120+ sections on our talk page... If not, we then have to scroll back to the top, hit history, and compare. Technical 13 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:SlimVirgin that's really informative. I'll see if I can put the section link back.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49954

I already said this at the IRC but let me say that again - Check the number of responses for new/nonresponsive users. Take all the users who have a low rate of talk page (or any page) replies, and compare their replies over Echo and OBOD. That will be a fairly unbiased metric. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you get rid of the OBOD notification system, how about enabling it on an opt-in basis (say as a gadget)? benzband (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First let me state I do not like the subtle number hiding at the top and I wish I had my orange bar back. With that said, I am 100% glad that the WMF is showing some backbone and taking action on some things finally. I wish they would do it more often until we as a community once again show that we are capable of implementing changes ourselves. We are currently failing miserably in every possible way to make any changes or improvements to even the most basic and fundamental issues. All the people here commenting in angry tones about how dare this be implemented without consulting the community, we deserve what we get. At least they are trying and implementing changes. We can't even do that! Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Bar should be the default

The Orange Bar should be an opt-out option. The new system is very cool, I intend to use it. However the Orange Bar should be the default. New editors are overwhelmed enough with new concepts, and a big orange bar requires no explanation that "SOMETHING INTERESTING HAS HAPPENED". Furthermore, AFAICT, the new system is heavily disenfranchising to IP editors. As someone who still does 90% of his editing anonymously, I would find this process to be grossly exclusionary. (And yes I know my IP editing habit is idiosyncratic, but I've been doing it for nearly 12 years now and I'm not going to change). Manning (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a duplicate poll in this section. There is already one further up the page. Manning, what do you mean by "heavily disenfranchising to IP editors". Do you just mean there was a bug affecting them for a few hours, or something more complex? LWelling (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its only logical. A big Yes TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to opt-out, per KWW's comment above about making sure IPs see that they have a message.Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment above about "the bug for IPs has been fixed". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to opt-out for all editors. It can be hard enough to get new editors to start communicating and not being sure they actually saw the message, doesn't help.Lova Falk talk 07:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to opt-out for all editors, per KWW and Lova Falk. This is especially important when registered students are editing as class assignments (and other new users) and when we leave messages for IPs. Removing completely as an option was a very poor idea. Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen -mattbuck (Talk) 10:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to opt-out. I too plan on using Echo, but I also plan on using the orange bar (and am currently thanks to Writ Keeper's script. In addition, it is needed for IPs and newbies (and, according to Fluffernutter and others above, oldies as well!). Ignatz mice•talk 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to opt-out for all editors. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, thanks for your helpful feedback on this topic. We hear you loud and clear, and we are now working on a solution that we think will address your concerns. Our primary goal is to provide more prominent display of talk page messages -- even if it's not exactly the 'orange bar of death' implementation, which many people found sub-optimal :) . We'll keep you posted on our progress in coming days. Thanks for your patience ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that works for me. I don't need the OBOD as such, I'll be quite happy as long as there is a "HONKING BIG NOTIFICATION" of some kind for newbies. Manning (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that this is being taken seriously, but something needs to be done right now, today. IPs and newbies are being warned, and blocked, as we speak by a system that isn't working for them and Wikipedia will be haemorrhaging new editors through frustation even faster than normal. If that "something" means turning back on the OB temporarily, then that's what should be done. I don't know how difficult that is, but I'm fairly certain the devs have rollback rights... Spinning Spark 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I keep saying this, but I agree. Is it really technically impossible to re-implement the orange bar temporarily? If not, EFFING DO IT ALREADY pleaseandthankyoumuchly. Ignatzmice•talk 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does anyone know why this edit didn't notify my main account? MJ94 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually sign your message with 4 tilde's? Unless you messed with your signature preferences, it looks like you did three tilde's, the small message, then 5 tildes. Presumably this should notify you. If that's not the case, you might have it unchecked in your preferences. Ryan Vesey 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I typo'd. However, this did notify me. Thanks, Ryan. MJ94 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49932

When I click the notifications button, I don't see the notification - the number goes to zero, but I stay on the page I was on rather than going to the notifications page. However, if I click on it before whatever page I'm on is fully loaded, I do go to the notifications page. I can also get there by right clicking and asking to open it in a new tab or window. I'm using Windows, Firefox, Modern skin
I see something about a "flyout" on the page about the tool; that doesn't appear at all for me
The links to "mentions" break when there is a wikilink in the section heading of the relevant page. For example, the link in the notification about this diff should have brought me here, but instead brought me here
There is a white line in the heading on the notifications page. Hovering over it, there appears to be the survey link on one side and the preferences link on the other, but I can't actually see either of those things because of the colour of the text/icon relative to the background colour. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Bugzilla now covers points 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deployed some fixes locally for the modern skin. It's not complete, but at least it should make the flyout workable for you. 4 is also hidden away in that report btw. See the point about "H1 positioning". 3 might require separate reporting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix DJ, 'preciate it. Is the heading issue related to why the "Notifications" title on Special:Notifications appears indented? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page is also fully customized and only taking two skins in mind, causing trouble for the two unsupported skins. :( —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here since you're here, but I don't have a major problem with the stuff on the header - it kind of makes sense and nothing changes up there except for a few scripts mostly limited to mainspace. Better it look different than not have the helpful links, jah? At any rate, every now and then the big ol' 0 has a big space next to it, mainly when editing. SO it looks like "AMORY 0 TALK" which is weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another bug?

Why was my little red numeral a "1" this morning when I had two new messages (from two different users), both of which arrived while I was logged out? Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a bug; it just collapses all the "you have a new message" things into a single notification and lets you know all at once. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Then that's a disadvantage of the new system. The OBOD told you how many new messages there were. Or rather from how many users. (SineBot counted as a user, which was sort of confusing. Maybe this isn't a big disadvantage.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the notification itself not say so? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It required clicking on and then counting the items, rather than the sum just being there on the page at a glance. It's not exactly onerous, but any decrease in functionality or user-friendliness isn't a good thing. Let me say that I thought I was going to warm to this feature because I imagine some real advantages in helping keep track of things, and I still think it has a lot of potential, but I'm beginning to think it was a bit of a blunder to eliminate the OBOD. A little redundancy wouldn't hurt when it comes to notifications about new messages in user talk, and I'm not clear why an opt-in choice for continued use of the OBOD is being denied. Is there a technical reason or what? (Apologies if that has been answered already. This page is an vast wall of text, and I have given up trying to follow every thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bug?

When I click my icon, I do not get an entire flyout screen. It is cut off so that I only see: ATIONS ? The screen is too far to the left. I've tried enlarging and shrinking my page size and tried eliminating my toolbars and still I can't see the left side. Funnily I have part of a post that says: BONO POSTED ON YOUR TALK PAGE. Please everyone run to see... ツ (Sorry it's now in an archived page). Is there some little knob I can twist to correct this? Fylbecatulous talk 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the "Modern" skin. I am on IE 10, Windows 7. Fylbecatulous talk 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please refer to my edits above in the section entitled "Not getting a link": I now see that I have Bug 47932. Call the exterminator. Fylbecatulous talk 23:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected behavior: no red

I'm using Monobook with Iceweasel on Debian at the current version of Squeeze. I'm getting numbers for talk page messages, but there is no red box surrounding them. Is this expected behavior for Monobook? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Monobook, OSX, Chrome and Safari. I do have the red around the number. Ignatzmice•talk 13:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bother. I'm guessing, then, that it's because I have javascript disabled. (Please don't give the obvious solution, "enable javascript".) I didn't expect the flyout to work, but the lack of red highlighting is an issue. At least Special:Notifications itself seems to be working as intended. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and there's another reason the orange bar is better. Not everyone will have JS enabled. Geez. Ignatzmice•talk 14:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I wish they would enable using both. It may have been low-tech, but at least low-tech almost always works. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to badger your choice, but is there a particular reason you have JavaScript disabled? That closes off a lot of handy functionality, not just on Wikipedia, but pretty much everywhere on the Internet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For almost everything, I find the speed penalty outweighs the added functionality. With a sample size of 25, I've measured that javascript slows my browsing to about 1/10th of my otherwise expected speed. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echo does work with Javascript disabled. You just don't get the flyout. If anyone knows how to create fancy flyouts without Javascript, I'd love to know :) Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the lack of flyout. My complaint was the lack of red highlighting around the (1). Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: There's not going to be all the functionality in this that you need, I've spent no time trying to work out how/if it and php could ever give you the interaction you need - and maybe it can't... it may be utterly useless for this purpose, probably a zillion browser compatibility issues, but this (from a quick Google) indicates that kind of thing is not totally impossible: [1] (worked for me in Chrome 28.0.1496.0 dev-m with JS disabled - no other tests done) Begoon ^talk 12:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch List Question for Second Account

I created a second account to test notifications. However, when logged on to the second account, I can't watch list pages. Is that because a setting is wrong, or do I first have to reply to the confirming email to confirm the second account? (I've also posted this at the Help Desk, so a reply in either forum is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get an answer on this? I can't reproduce it. If it is still happening, what do you mean by "can't watch list pages". What skin is that account using? What browser and operating system are you using? LWelling (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention by IP

Should I expect a notification when I am mentioned by an IP? Or Wikipedia was smart enough to detect that that IP was actually me? (I have no privacy issue with that IP disclosure, let it be there) --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution (I am not a dev): You didn't actually add a mention to User:Titodutta, just removed a mention of another user. I believe you only get a mention if someone adds your name. (Otherwise everyone who'd ever posted/been mentioned on a talk page would get a notification with every new edit. We have the watchlist for that.) Ignatzmice•talk 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add a mention and sign, yep :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hassle and Suggestion magic word

a) Few weeks ago, Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians page was redesigned and all linked usernames were moved from main page to subpages. b) I have seen sometimes for WikiProjects, task forces etc (specially for new WikiProjects who have not finished designing) they move "Participants" list to sub page etc Does that mean, in such situation, it'll notify all those hundreds of editors? For example, if a new deceased editor's name is included in deceased page, we should add it as a "mention" in his account.
Suggestion: A magic word __STOPNOTIFICATIONS__ can be created so that while doing the works mentioned above, before starting the page redesign work, we can add the magic word in the page to stop notifying and after finishing the task remove the word! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, we often write like this I don't know about the topic, you might get some help from User:Example, —here too notification is not necessary! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless people have started signing, which is a requirement here; you have to both link, and sign in your post. And actually I'd argue that if you're saying "I don't know about the topic, you might get some help from User:Example", User:Example being able to wander along and go "oh, yes!" is really helpful. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to their talk page solves the additional problem. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility concern

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49993

I'm concerned about the accessibility of this tool for screen reader users like myself. While the bold number of notifications is on the top of the screen for sighted users, this is not the case for users of screen readers, which create a virtual buffer in which the HTML and CSS of a page is analysed and presented to users. Screen readers read the HTML of a page from the top to the bottom, so the position of an element on a page for screen readers depends on where it is in the HTML. Therefore, the number (0 or 1 or whatever it may be) is near the bottom of the page from the perspective of a screen reader user, and would be very difficult to find, especially for new users.

The only sensible solution I can think of is to bring back the orange bar (or a functional equivalent); perhaps it could be made to say something like "You have a new message and 3 other notifications", if, for example, a user received a new message, two of their edits were reverted, and they were mentioned once in a discussion.

I do like the mention and revert notification features; they seem like they could be very useful. Graham87 11:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would work for you, but User:Writ Keeper wrote a script that adds back some of the orange bar's functionality. It's JavaScript, but maybe your reader can deal with that? In any case, yes, developers, this is yet another reason we need the orange bar back NOW. Ignatzmice•talk 12:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! The script works fine for now. I found out about it while reading through other discussions on this looooooong page, but thanks all the same. :) Graham87 12:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really good point; I'll bring it up with the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the number be at the bottom of the screen? The number appears immediately after your name in the HTML whether the browser has JavaScript turned on or off. Kaldari (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the html for your username is near the bottom of the source file. Chris857 (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, screenreaders start at content, and only lastly will start reading the chrome. They follow DOM order, and it is exactly the reason that our skins put navigation elements at the end of the generated HTML to begin with. This is also one of the reasons that our notices are inserted before #firstHeading. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps using role=alert here might be a good idea ? It's a tad complicated to get it to work. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not my preferred solution, per my comment at Bugzilla about it. I'd prefer a static notification in this case, if at all practical. By the way I've just made good use of the "mentions" feature, which proves that it is *possible* for screen reader users to use the new interface, but not *intuitive*. I well remember my excitement and slight bemusement when I got my very first "You have new messages" notice; I hadn't read anything about user talk pages but I knew exactly what it meant. I don't think I would have had the same impression if I was greeted with a "1" in some out-of-the-way part of the page. Graham87 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Link part of Notification and OBOD separation anxiety

Got my first notice of a Link. I have to say that I really like this feature of the Notification - this was a really good idea you folks came up with. Replacing the OBOD, not so much. For everything mentioned above, and that it's now a two-step process to respond to notification on a talk page. Used to be - OBOD comes up, click on it to go right to the talk page. Now, it's the teensy red pipe notification - click on it, then click again for the talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, it is a Good Thing that we've lengthened the talk page response to two clicks. People are too quick to respond anyway, and slowing them down, even by a single extra click can only help temper their response. We don't need people to reply faster, but slower. Nevertheless, if we replace the useless navigation panel on the left with a notification feed, you can get it down to one click. Really, I can't see any reason to restore OBOD and many reasons to keep the new notification system in place. It's superior to every aspect of the OBOD. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I've never used the left-side navigation panel for anything but a quick link to the Main page. I've never even paid attention to what else was on it. The idea of a live feed there instead of the current Notification is a great idea. I'd go along with this. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.o, interesting, I always find the toolbox links very handy and I use them all the time.

— -dainomite 13:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the toolbox and navigation panels are quite different. Like you, I use the toolbox constantly, and like Maile I never use the navigation panel. Ignatzmice•talk 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also use Toolbox a lot. I think Viriditas was just talking about the part that links Main page, contents, Featured content, Current events, Random article, Donate to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Shop. About the only people who would look at that are visitors. That panel space could be different for logged-in users. Just envision it if it were a highlighted live feed that way. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link notification is awesome; can it be more flexible, please?

I too have found link notification to be a great new feature. But it's frustrating that it is limited to articles I created. I want to be able to specify other pages that I really care about to get link notifications for, and specify pages I created to not get notifications for.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on talkpage notifications

Hey all. The Editor Engagement team spent almost all of yesterday working on ways to resolve the issue of talkpage notifications and the prominence problems around them. I'd hoped that they'd have been able to come up with something by the end of the day; I'm now being told that their timetable is "something by 2pm PST today". When I've got something to share, I'll share it.

On a personal note: I see a lot of people above complaining about "the developers". While I suspect this is just a catch-all for "the staffers involved", it sort of hurts to see the programmers blamed for what was ultimately a decision of product design - while developers did participate, it was mostly the visual designers and product managers. And I say this as someone who is most certainly not a developer. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Oliver. Looking forward to seeing what you all come up with.

On the second note, I think it might help if you change the notification (watch list notification, I think) to say "Please let the Wikimedia Foundation know what you think" or similar, instead of "please let the developers know." I suspect we're all happy comply with however we should be addressing people. If I've contributed to this confusion, my apologies. -Pete (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; I'll ask someone to tweak it now (unless you want to? Admin and all :).) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you, or somebody, already got to it -- and I'm glad, because "editor engagement team" is obviously the right phrasing, but it wasn't obvious to me until I saw it :) -Pete (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I poked people on IRC in the -admins channel; time to find out who did it so I can thank them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'll be taking the day (and the weekend) off - several days of answering things constantly have got me kinda bushed :/. While I genuinely appreciate the feedback everyone has given, answering it for 15 hours straight isn't fun for anyone, and I don't want to be unnecessarily snarky or useless ;p. I have reason to believe that my boss will be participating if there are any concerns about my brief absence from the conversation, and I hope Vibha, Fabrice, Kaldari and Luke will continue chipping in. Thanks for understanding :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Oliver's been living on this page since Tuesday, and he really needs a break. So do all the other folks on the team. I've asked Oliver to take the weekend off (as he should do, normally) and we'll get back to discussing things on Monday. In the meantime, if anyone has anything that can't wait for a few days to be addressed, please mention me in your comment :). Howief (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, wait one freakin' minute, @Howief: YES, we have something that can't wait. If you're going to leave this until next week, give us back the orange bar first. Just as a temporary measure. Or have you not seen the #Yes section? Ignatzmice•talk 23:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey Ignatz. Yes, I've read the Yes section carefully, as well as all the other posts related to the orange bar. So has everyone who's worked on the feature. The team has been working hard since releasing earlier this week and could use some breathing room. I would really appreciate folks giving the team some space so we can resume the discussion fresh on Monday. Hope that's ok. Howief (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand the coders need breathing room; no one operates well with constant yelling. What I don't understand is why the coders don't turn the orange bar back on while they are altering Echo to resolve the various issues. I'm not technically minded, but it seems like the existing Echo and existing orange bar system would coexist until Echo is modified to make it more prominent, address the IP issues, etc. The unwillingness to turning it back on while things are fixed makes people like me feel like the WMF isn't interested in doing what it can to support my editing, even if it must make changes to advance the software's progress. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - edit conflict; agree with MBisanzWell, Howie, I can't argue with that, or force you to keep working. Obviously you can't be expected to work 24/7. But you wouldn't have had all this blowback if you'd been clearer about the destruction of the orange bar. And—I keep asking this and not getting a response—we would like to know if there is a technical reason we can't have it back temporarily, or if you're all just being heavy-handed jerks. Ignatzmice•talk 01:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        In the world of software engineering, it's rarely as simple as flicking a switch. I daresay it is not a super difficult change to make, but not extremely easy either. It has to be carefully thought out and thoroughly tested (I'm sure you would be unhappy if stuff got completely broken along the way). Getting the orange bar and Echo to co-exist might be quite difficult; I don't know. Don't assume that the developers are being "heavy-handed" just because something doesn't come immediately. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It was as simple as flicking a switch for the IP issue. Admittedly it might be harder for logged-in users because they have Echo as well. But I really am quite frustrated with the WMF team for not even answering questions about temporarily turning it back on. This question has been asked here (and here), here, here, here, here, here (and here), and the two replies above yours. In only one case was the actual question addressed: replying to the second diff, Okeyes said he thought it was just that the WMF liked it this way. I have yet to see anything from an actual developer telling me it's impossible to turn the orange bar on temporarily, and at this point, yes, I'm assuming they're just being pigheaded about it. Whatever the supposed issues were with it, there would be NO LOSS if they gave it back temporarily—unless there is a technical issue, which they've been careful to avoid talking about. Ignatzmice•talk 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing notification types in preferences?

The preferences FAQ (Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ) lists the following preferences for me:

Talk page messages: when a message is left on your user talk page (this replaces the orange bar that used to appear);
Mentions: when your user name is mentioned on a talk page;
Page reviews: when a page you created is reviewed (applies to new users only);
Page links: when a new link is made to a page you created;
Edit reverts: when your edits are undone or rolled back;
Thanks: when someone thanks you for your edit (coming soon);
User rights: when your user rights change;
Welcome: when you create a new account;
Getting started: when you have confirmed your email address.

However, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo doesn't show me the last 4. I understand that the thanks bit isn't implemented yet, and since I've had this account for... wow, 4 years already? "welcome" and "getting started" are moot. But that still leaves "user rights" out in the cold. Is that notification planned? Something not all users get? (I'm not sure why some users wouldn't get a say on whether they're informed when they get new rights, in that case.) Or is the absence of the item on the preferences page an oversight? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's planned and deployed, but it's not a class of message that you should be able to turn off (same as talkpage messages). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. However, I do see a checkbox for email notifications of talkpage changes. I don't see one for webpage notifications, but it's not obvious to me whether that means "those are always on", "those are always off", or "we aren't telling". If the former two, a read-only checkbox (maybe with some explanation of why they're that way) would be nice, esp. since I do have control of email notifications. If the latter, I'm really curious why you think I don't need to know. (If the intended meaning is something else than the ones I listed, please elaborate.) Likewise, I'd like to know what the settings of webpage and email notifications are for the options not listed on the page are, whether I can change them or not. And if I can't change either, an explanation of why would be nice to have. (For all of the above, that explanation might be in the FAQ instead of the notification preferences tab itself, but IMO the value of the settings should be given on the page itself. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Always on"; it was actually planned to have a greyed-out checkbox, which should be in the next release, but we didn't have time to include it this time around. The options not listed on the page - welcome and getting started are (to my knowledge) one-time, web-only notifications: ~~user rights, I believe, the same.~~ Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point for welcome and GS notifications being 1-time if the corresponding messages are going to be automated at all (I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that's a different discussion and moot for me anyway) since users should only get those messages once in that case, but I'm unclear what you mean by user rights being the same. Are you referring to one set of user rights that by its nature gets (eventually) granted to all or most users eventually, or are you saying I'll never see any notification after my first rights change, even if I'm granted other rights later? (This may make no sense, depending on whether/how/why/when new rights are granted - I'm not even sure which rights I have, what they're for, or why I should care whether/when mine change, unless it's because I did Something Bad.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauAmma (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, sorry; had a mental fail. User-rights messages are permanently on; the idea is that changes are important enough that, positive or negative, you should be aware of them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Are there any plans to let users choose how they want those always-on notifications delivered? And likewise, will there be a web-only notification to talk page edits? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a web-only talkpage notification; that's the default :). I don't think there are any plans on that front - the web interface is always going to be the primary interface for notifications. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications about Archive Bots

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49910

Resolved

I didn't used to get a yellow bar when a bot archived my talk page; now I get a notification :S can this be fixed? Pretty please! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can Echo be fine tuned to ignore certain pages?

So I just got (15 hours ago) a notification that said "Christina Crawford (wrestler) was linked from Ariane Andrew: See all links to this page". It took a suggestion from legoktm and some digging, but I found out that the reason I'm getting that notification is that I was the one that promoted it at Articles for Creation, way back in 2010. It would be really nice if I could exclude those articles from what I get notified on, without having to disable two whole categories of notification. They should all have the edit summary "Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!)". Will this be possible? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page links are certainly problematic (which is why they are off by default for existing users). It would be really nice if there were a way to know that pages you are really interested in got linked somewhere. Unfortunately "really interested in" is hard to detect. Maybe something like "pages you have made more than 20 edits to" would catch it. In the short term I think active users will mostly keep them turned off or they'll get a lot of notifications about category pages. For a new editor who creates a few articles on a topic area they have expertise in they could be very rewarding and let them see their contributions getting appreciated. For power users, they are probably too noisy. LWelling (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could only show links to pages on one's watchlist? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be a valid option, but I'm not sure it helps most people. Active users routinely have 1000s of watched pages.LWelling (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to make the feature really useful for highly active users, you do need to provide lots of control options, and "only show it for watched pages" is certainly one good control option. I would say that this feature as it stands is certainly useful for newcomers who haven't created many pages. (Just as well there's some benefit to more engaged newcomers at least, since complete newbies are currently getting screwed by low visibility of welcome and warning and other talkpage messages...) Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature of alternative account

Is there any way I can tweak the signature of my alternative account (e.g. [2]), so that it still links to my main account but doesn't notify me every time I sign something? An optimist on the run! 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a redirect to your userpage in your userspace and then have your alt link that. I think that works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I'll try it. Thanks. An optimist on the run! 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of mention

Let me be sure that I understand exactly what is a mention. Does that only happen if another user entered my properly wikified user name, User:Robert McClenon, in a talk page? That is what I would expect, because I am an IT engineer, but it may not be what an inexperienced user would expect. Many posters simply type the user's name without wikifying it. Should there be instructions to that effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should (and will be!) - I think one method of learning, however, is seeing it done. A lot of people find things out via, I guess, social osmosis rather than help documentation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience so far:

It works if you add the person's wikilinked username and sign your post, provided you are on a talk page (or possibly other page, like ANI, as noted above).
It does not work if you put the wikilinked username in the edit summary.
It does not work if you put the wikilinked username in HTML comment-tags.
It does not work if you do not sign with four tildes.

Hope this helps. Ignatzmice•talk 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But (as was asked before) does it work with the {{user}} template? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~No. But {{subst:user}} does. That's kinda annoying. Ignatzmice•talk 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just done more testing - it works with {{user}}, so you should be notified about this - Ypnypn (talk · contribs). On the other hand, a link to a user talk page doesn't appear to notify the user. An optimist on the run! 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was notified. Thanks for the quick response. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I must have done something wrong. Just tried it again; as Optimist says, it does work. Ignatzmice•talk 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking sideways, it seems that if we want someone to know we've mentioned them, we do it in brackets. If we want to talk behind their back, we do it without. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing talk notifications

I had 2 unread notifications -Nvvchar. 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC) and DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC). Notifications showed only the latter, not both when I assessed wikipedia approx. 20:30 IST. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is the diff option not in notifications? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can provide a screenshot of the first bug? And the second is being fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example for today: DYKUpdateBot and 1 other posted on your talk page.

"Giving DYK credit for Master Vithal" How do I interpret the 1 was Nvvchar (who updated old section)? DYKUpdateBot left 3 messages. But I know only about Master Vithal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Echo reporting a revert

Resolved

Someone just reverted an editor with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 553245825 by Floquenbeam (TW)". But the notification system just sent me a message that my edit to that page had been reverted, presumably because my name shows up in their edit summary. The coders of Echo and the coders of Twinkle need to huddle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your later edit here was one of those which was reverted by the return to your earlier version, so I don't think it's a bug. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, my mistake. Thanks for catching that. Nevermind... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I had a speedy tag removed from an article (and put it back later). Does this count as a revert, 'cos I didn't get notified? Diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3LD_Art_%26_Technology_Center&diff=553238508&oldid=553238289 while it lasts (admins will be able to see it later, of course). Peridon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought - is it only a revert when 'undo' is used for the purposes of Notification? This one was manual removal not 'undo'. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if Twinkle, etc, did it too, though I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. I'll check that now. Ignatzmice•talk 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is another case where what an inexperienced user might expect is not what an IT engineer would expect. (IT engineer who is inexperienced user still brings knowledge of how software is designed. Most users are not IT engineers.) It is easy to design the software to provide notification of a revert via the Undo button. On a manual edit, it would be complicated to determine whether the edit had the effect of reverting a previous edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Twinkle-reverts do not trigger a notification. "Undo"-reverts do. I wonder about rollback by admins? That's more system-level than Twinkle. Maybe you could try rolling back any recent edits here? Ignatzmice•talk 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as rollbacker. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got a notification. Ignatzmice•talk 22:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)OK - I've rolled back the last edit there (not with Twinkle). I very rarely use rollback. I've probably rolled back the roll back... Peridon (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So has TheOriginalSoni had a notification of my admin rollback? Peridon (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link notifications for redirects

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50045

...are entirely too excessive for someone who has created millions of redirect pages like me. I'm turning that feature off for now but it would still be useful for my real created pages. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That they can't detect redirects is frustrating; I'll put it in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, it would be nice if links to redirects of articles I created caused notifications, regardless of who created the redirect itself. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to new section on your talk page

English is my second language, so please let me know if I'm being too vague or unclear. Thanks.

The notification for changes to your talk page, i.e. the addition of a new section/message, only provides a link to the entire talk page ("User talk:Mathonius") and not a link to the added section ("User talk:Mathonius#Echo"), like the orange banner used to do. The same notification in my archive gives a link to the user page of the user editing my talk page, a link to the entire talk page, and a link to the specific section. Is it possible to add such a link to the original notifications as well?

Regards, Mathonius (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I asking the same question as Redtigerxyz (see here)? Mathonius (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathonius: Should be fixed as soon as the next deployment happens (next week). Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kaldari. Oddly enough, the notification of your reply was "Kaldari mentioned you on [[Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Link_to_new_section_on_your_talk_page|Wikipedia talk:Notifications]].", linking to this specific section. Mathonius (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least it works for mention notifications :) Kaldari (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment notifications

I apologize if this has already been suggested. I would like to receive notifications when certain DYK, GA, and FA nominations/reviews are initiated and when they are passed/failed. I'm particularly interested in articles about Hawaii. Can someone add this to the feature queue? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. I'm the ux designer on this project. The good news is that some sort of subscription based model is on the long long term roadmap. Its going to take a significant amount of evolution to get there. We certainly want to get to a place where we can provide much more a fine tune controls on what we notify you about. i.e: projects/ categories/ people / articles that a user cares about. It is (needless to say) very complex and so this first phase is about understanding how users are using notifications and then providing a more powerful control panel . Vibhabamba (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhabamb, this productive suggestion from Viriditas, and your comment about a long term roadmap providing notifications, make me think about how this all could help individual projects.

On the short end of it, the old diabled Rich Farmbrough tools like Fembot were never substituted with something else. So we have pages like Hawaii Project Recent Changes stopped adding articles a year ago when the bot was disabled, and, therefore, are now only Reporting on articles that had been added up to that time. Not all projects have this set up, but the ones that do are a year out of date. Would be good if something could be substituted for the projects.
On a larger scale, WikiProject Military History is more organized than the average project, but they have Summary of open tasks, manually updated, that is similar to what Viriditas is requesting on an individual user basis. It would be great if the idea that Viriditas has requested on a personal user availability, combined with what Femtobot used to do, could be designed for the projects. And maybe along the lines that it would just be automatically attached to the talk pages of all projects. Quite frankly, most of the projects out there don't know what is available to them, and nobody is really in charge of the individual projects.

Just some thoughts. The projects don't seem to be on the drawing board when system improvements are designed. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly on the drawing board; the issue is how we implement things in a way that's generalisable. So: we totally could build it around Wikiprojects, or to handle Wikiprojects, but localising that to different projects is going to be very difficult. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a step in the right direction. Hope is in view...— Maile (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maile. I agree with your comments, and that's exactly what I was getting at. I forgot to add, I would like to be notified about XfDs and RfCs related to the Hawaii project. My personal problem with the current notification system is that it isn't open enough to allow other editors to tweak it to add and receive notifications of their choice, particularly in terms of improving participation in community processes like Xfd, GAR, etc. I mean, look at the backlog for GA articles already. Can you imagine if interested editors were receiving notifications based on review topics? The queues would be free and clear. I appreciate all the work the team has done so far, but it seems to me the most important aspect of notifications is not being utilized. I really think this should be a priority. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications for templated messages.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50044

Yesterday, I left {{Subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}} on the talk page of a person I was training, When I saw them looking at the notification, it said I had said "{{Welcome to Wikipedia}}". Not the most user-friendly message; and will be less so for user warning templates and others with obscure names or shortcuts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there are other parts of Echo's talkpage notice handling that need improving? Colour me shocked. The important thing is: no backsies. Rd232 ^talk 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing; yep, markup in edit summaries and section titles is a known (and listed) bug. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon :). Rd232; can you explain how commentary like that is at all contributing to the discussion? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are; griping is useless. So floating #Petition on handling of interface changes. Rd232 ^talk 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing links

I have a notification:

Frankley was linked from John Pakington (serjeant-at-law): See all links to this page

linked as shown. The most useful link for me, here, would be John Pakington (serjeant-at-law). No doubt others would want a link to Frankley. It seems bizarre to mention articles by title and not link to them. In some cases, "WhatLinksHere" lists will be so long as to be effectively useless.

Also, the phrase "this page" is unhelpfully ambiguous; and the repetition of "See all links to this page" as link text in multiple notifications, with different targets, is a a breach of accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighted data

On my Special:Notifications, it includes article titles of articles that link to pages I created, the subject lines of discussions that mention me or that are made on my talk page, and the usernames of all people who trigger notices. This is true even if the article is deleted, the discussion is renamed, or the user is renamed. This would seem to be bad from an oversight perspective, because if a discussion subject or article title contained private information, like Jenny at 867-5309 or ==Matt Bisanz from 34th Street in New York is being mean to me== and was properly oversighted, it would still appear in any number of people's Special:Notifications page, defeating the purpose of oversight. This would also be true if the action was done by User:MBisanz is at 867-5309 and the username was suppressed or forcibly renamed. MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications are basically private to the users which they were sent to, there's no point trying to hide things which people have (or should have in the case of non-recent unread notifications) already seen. It's not the same situation as the public logs/history where new, uninvolved, users could come along and see now-private information. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of at least one very easy to execute attack, but I'll refrain from laying out the step-by-step until I hear if it will be changed to stop it from occurring. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making the tab across the top-right more prominent

While we're here, can we make that tab going from our usernames all the way to "logout" in the topright hand corner of the screen much more prominent? That's always irked me... especially when trying to log in to Wikipedia on my iPhone. So fiddly. But in general they shouldn't all be lumped together like that. IMO username and talkpage should be much larger, especially since they appear after every signature.--Coin945 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC) hi User:Coin945 Im the UX designer on this project. Absolutely agree with you, the top right nav is too small with too many elements in it. We need to find a way so that username and talk are easier targets. We are definitely working on this in the coming few iterations. Vibhabamba (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petition on handling of interface changes

The handling of Wikipedia:Interface changes is an issue that comes up again and again. Fundamentally, there's a lack of sufficient communication, and a failure to try hard enough to leverage the collective knowledge of active Wikipedians. This applies most obviously to things which do get implemented (like Echo), but also to things which don't (like cross-wiki watchlists). It's been pointed out that Echo was signposted in various ways (including being WP:SIGNPOSTed), yet this failed to include the key information that the Orange Bar was being replaced from day one, rather than supplemented and perhaps later phased out. And the effective rejection of requests to at least temporarily restore the status quo ante whilst an adequate replacement is developed is not good enough: for an Editor Engagement Team to produce a tool that at least temporarily substantially harms engagement of new editors whilst needlessly pissing off many highly active editors is unsatisfactory to say the least.

So I'm just floating the idea of a petition asking WMF to try to improve communication between editors and WMF design/development (which absolutely does not mean allowing the community to block everything they don't like). Anyone think it's worth doing? (Would help if it was accompanied by concrete suggestions on how.) Rd232 ^talk 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellz yes. Though that's just my frustration speaking. Obviously something should be done, but at this point I don't have a lot of confidence that it will be. Ignatzmice•talk 22:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Given that the Foundation can do it (like how it's been communicating SUL finalization), I don't see why it wasn't done here. It would have been very easy to edit the orange bar for the week or two before the change to say "You have a talk page edit. By the way, starting on X, look up for the red square by your name instead of here to see talk page edits and other notices." MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there seems to be an attitude of "we're going to do this whether you like it or not" from the Foundation recently. This just leads to an "us and them" feeling from editors. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 22:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YES!!! They have no problem beating us over the head with humonguous fugly banners when they want our money but when they want to ~~fuck up~~ mess around with our working environment and tools they take great care to only "announce" it in a few carefully selected obscure walled gardens. How about creating a "community noticeboard" page that is permanently included in all users' watchlists. BTW I've turned off all the new notifications so that the silly little red dot comes up only for talk page notification - Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - please raise it. It seems to be that the perceived "imposition" of changes to the working environment of editors is at odds with a project based around democratic ideals of consensus and civility. Whether or not the imposition is real is irrelevant at this point, as it is the perception that counts. Such a strategy is also unwise in two respects. First, extensive consultation would have pointed out any flaws in the change, which might have been remedied. Second, once a perception of imposition has been created, editors are much less likely to accept the change and anything associated with it. Debate then becomes heated and damage may be done in the commitment of a team working on the software project and of editors in general. In this case it was probably compounded by Okeyes' comment that "In the long term, this feature isn't going away", which may go down in the annals of Wikipedia as one of the great indicative soundbites (although I note the context of the statement that goes before this - which was clearly meant to be conciliatory). This could all be avoided in the first place, but also needs to be treated with greater care once a widespread reaction becomes clear. It is also true that editors need to keep civil and calm no matter the perceived harm. In short there needs to be better consideration and communication in both sets of circumstances: how changes are communicated and consulted on and what happens if the first of these fails, as it clearly has in this case.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the issue is larger than communication. Communication needs to be two-way; it is no good if one party refuses to listen. The unfortunate Okeyes is doing his best (and he showed with Page Curation that development in collaboration with the users and taking their views into account is possible), but in this case, though he told the devs six months ago that this was not an adequate way to signal new talk page messages, they clearly thought they knew better. When the first appalled reaction to the loss of the orange bar began to come in, there was at first some suggestion that it could be reconsidered, but early on Wednesday the door was banged shut, and Okeyes now has to tell us not to bother with an RFC (currently running 102/19) because "Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens."

There is a repeated pattern here, seen before with ACTRIAL, and the attitude comes from the top of the WMF: they know best, and the message for volunteers is that we just have to trust them because "If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will - do things you won't like. HTH, Erik" That is an unfortunate attitude from a Foundation whose output is produced entirely by volunteers. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Preferences documentation

FYI, I made a quick section for this in Help:Preferences#Notifications, basically linking to the 2 main documentation pages, and the latest TheSignpost summary. (Help:Preferences is linked at the top of Special:Preferences). Please tweak/edit as needed. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please be able to get rid of the little gray box altogether?

I can't stand notifications. I think that they are completely ridiculous and don't even want to look at them. I changed my preferences so that it won't give me notifications at all. However, the little gray box with a 0 in it remains. If we select not to get notifications at all, may we please be able to have the gray box disappear? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect someone like User:Writ Keeper could code something to hide it in your CSS. It also raises the question of whether the en.wiki community could decide to bring back a more prominent notification system or make the gray box an opt-in using edits to Gadgets and global css/js. I doubt that would go down well though. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This css code...

#pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; }

...removes the gray box and the number. It leaves a blank space, though. Just add it to Special:MyPage/common.css (for all skins) or Special:MyPage/vector.css (for just the vector skin). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that doesn't work for me. Ignatzmice•talk 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Got it! For whatever skin you use (for example, for me, User:Ignatzmice/monobook.css) add to your CSS file:
span#mw-badge-content {display: none}
li#pt-notifications {display: none}
and it should be gone. Ignatzmice•talk 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really preferred the orange box... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to say so at #Yes above! You'd be number 97. Ignatzmice•talk 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Anonymouse & Ignatzmice for your scripts.

Mlpearc (powwow) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit: I just grabbed it from further up on this page

(see #Requesting ability to turn off all notifications and #How to turn this off). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 03:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to make this into a clickable Gadget in Preferences? MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's already User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cookielessOrangeBar.js. I imagine it'd be pretty simple to turn these into a JavaScript Gadget available in Special:Preferences. But there a lot of issues getting muddied/muddled on this talk page and the gadget will only solve one particular problem.

Notifications for people making bad edits (anon or not) are a big issue. It might mitigate this to implement a "seen" feature for talk page warnings. Maaaaaaaaybe. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that cookielessOrangeBar.js is obsolete; the cookieless functionality has been merged into the main orangeBar.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same here too. I've installed Writ Keeper's OBOD script. Leaving the space blank is better than having some Notification box. Arctic Kangaroo 08:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk message alert isn't obvious enough for newbies

I like the new functions but the tab should be flashing ( or the notifications floating (flyout) box should pop up automatically) when there's an unread message on your talk page. Yesterday I encountered an excellent new biomedical editor; I left a personalised welcome on his talk page. Today I realise he's never going to see it. There is no point in leaving talk page notices for newbies at the moment. This to some degree undermines new editor retention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? That's a very useful observation. Hey User:Howief, User:Eloquence, User:Okeyes (WMF), User:Fabrice Florin (WMF), this guy here has just pointed out a major bug in your new system. Maybe there should be a bigger notification for newbies! A big bright-colored bar running across the top of any page they visit, maybe. It would tell them in no uncertain terms that there had been a change to their talk page (hey, they might not even know they had a talk page), and it would stay there until they visited their talk page to see the message. What do people think of that idea? Ignatzmice•talk 04:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ignatzmice You raise a very valid point with the current talk notification being less prominent than desired, so it absolutely must be fixed. That said, the Orange Bar also has behavioral issues with it. For one it is disconnected from the talk hook, it also makes you go to the talk page instead of providing notification content right there. We think that we could provide the same level of prominence and efficiency with some slightly altered versions of the Orange bar. We are currently exploring a few options to fix this issue and are hoping to share early next week using IRC. One humble request - we are with you, not against you. Vibhabamba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anthonyhcole just came up with a really good idea that may have been overlooked: Just make the notifications message box flyout automatically (without the new user having to notice and then click on it) when there is an unread talk page message. One could even argue that is more noticeable than the orange bar. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested (as Fluffernutter mentioned) the idea of the Notifications box popping out automatically for IPs and users that are not yet autoconfirmed within a few minutes of rollout, further, I would suggest the background colour for the top cell in the Notifications box (i.e that which contains the text Notifications ? be coloured to match the old OBOD). I would say however that I (personally) don't want an auto opening Notifications box and I know a lot of people don't want that so when autoconfirmed comes along, it should be a configurable option. When editing and creating content rather than performing administrative tasks, it's nice to see you have a message on your talk page, without having to leave the page you're on at the moment and trundle off to visit your talk page, just to see you added a link to a DAB page or someone is wanting you to undertake some administrative action.

I would also caution those who are being a little unpleasant towards the developers of this, starting petitions and being quite unhelpful at times with sarcastic remarks (they're not big nor clever, as well you know) - you know (or should know) full well that people complain when they're unhappy but say little or nothing when they're happy. There are at the very least the same number of people out there who are quite satisfied with Echo and given the numbers editing v. the numbers complaining here, probably a lot more. They'll have no idea of this discussion and aren't driven to say "Ooh it's wonderful, leave it alone". Human nature and all that.

Yes, it's not perfect but without rolling it out and getting feedback, it never would be perfect from day one because a handful of developers cannot hope to guess what hundreds of thousands of people are going to say and do with the new feature - different people want it to do different things, not just notify people of a new talk page message so it's only natural something that provides vastly increased functionality will not provide the exact combination of functionality everybody wants from day one.

Go forth but play nicely, everybody. Nick (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people not likely to complain are the big issue, actually - here, new editors and IPs (before the absurd oversight for the latter was fixed). Highly active editors can and will adapt, as evidenced by the creation of scripts and CSS to get rid of the new system because they don't like it. (This of course does nothing for the long-term health of the system, if large numbers of people hate it because of one key broken aspect and opt out of what should be a great new thing.)
WMF can't make everyone happy, nor predict everyone's needs. But they can try harder to collaborate with users in design and to be responsive to feedback, whilst retaining final say over what gets done. See also Wikipedia:Interface changes. Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts

Not complaining about anything, just some thoughts triggered by all the dialogue on this page.

What Rd232 says about the people not likely to complain being the big issue - it's something I've wondered about with all issues, every time I read something over at the Village Pump. On every talk page that involves policy, procedure, complaints, it's frequently the same small core of users, with some variations, likely to express anything. And how many editors does Wikipedia have? Millions? How many of them actually even read talk pages and are informed about changes? How many of them are going along clueless that the OBOD is gone and have never even noticed the new notification?
I access from a computer, not a hand held device, so I can only guess at this. That little red notification thingy - how noticeable is it to the people who are accessing from a device? How many see a grayed-out pipe and think they need to clean their device screen?
The fly-out idea. If I were a new user, and something flew out from my browser that I could click, my first thought would be that I just got a virus. That's been one of the things that drives conversation over at the Village Pump every time something new gets activated like that. The most recent being dialogue being about those warnings you get that you are about to close multiple tabs.
We all deal with the frustration of editors who ignore their own talk page postings. One of the most recent one I've seen is an editor who has been around for years and almost always never reacts to talk page postings. And using DYK as an example, editors doing a review leave talk page messages to nominators because the nomination needs action of some sort. Sometimes the nominators respond, and there's a wide variance on how long it takes to get a response. Sometimes they don't respond. I can think of a couple right now where the nominators/article creators are professional-level in RL, but have not responded to concerns. Did they happen to not know about the new notification system? Or is it just one of those things?

As I say, not complaining. But hoping everything comes together eventually. — Maile (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikis

Many users of the Chinese Wikipedia(including me) want to try this in Chinese Wikipedia. Would you mind installing this function in Chinese Wikipedia? Thanks!--Carrotkit (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50% statistic

So, according to research, only 50% of people clicked the orange bar. This statistic seems to form a substantial portion of the justification for removing the orange bar in favor of Echo. I have a few questions:

Is Echo being tracked to see if it generates higher or lower notification rate?
What is the threshold or criteria for determining if the implementation of Echo is a success or a failure?
What will happen if Echo's final, long-term notification rate is lower than 50%?
If the goal is getting more people to click, why wasn't Echo implemented in addition to an orange bar (or a bar of a different color/format)?
I see the default for Echo was set with notifications for Talk page post, Mention, Page review, Edit revert turned on for the website and Page link turned off, with email notice turned off for all of them. If one of the goals is increasing user awareness of notifications, why weren't email notices for Talk page posts turned on by default? Can we request that they be turned on by default for registered users?

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]