Jump to content

Help talk:Notifications

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theopolisme (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 11 November 2013 (→‎Timestamps: hover?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Echo - selected open bugs and feature requests

Bugzilla list
quick links: Open Bugs and requests (all)


Selected bugs, mentioned in current talkpages and current archive (4).
  1. bugzilla:52319 (ctrl/middle-click in flyout)
  2. bugzilla:48882 and bugzilla:50082 (Notifications received due to mentions in accidentally transcluded pages)
  3. bugzilla:53176 (Not getting notified for reverts if Preview or Show Changes is used)
  4. bugzilla:50829 (Echo notifications show [No page] instead of pagename if the page was deleted)
  5. #Problems (3) above. ("My notification count only goes down to 1, even after I look at all the revert notifications. This may only occur when I have more than one page of notifications." ... "'Only when' is probably correct. When there are less than 8 hits (red number), it resets to 0.")
  6. (Mobile editors are seeing, but can't use, the Thank links.) #Thank feature for mobile users above.
  7. bugzilla:52510 (Echo and FlaggedRevs) - rejected Revisions part is patched. The approved Revisions code is abandoned in gerrit as it doesn't account for some important cases. Use the FlaggedRevs icon:  ?
  8. bugzilla:54391 In Bundled talkpage message Notifications, the "View changes" link in the flyout only links to the most recent edit. (See also the "Yellow Message indicator" item below. See the old OBOD code for suggestions maybe? It "gave a link to all changes done since the last time I viewed my talk page".)


Selected Feature requests
  1. bugzilla:52690 (Notification when user becomes auto-confirmed)
  2. bugzilla:49446 (Linking a username in an Edit-Summary should trigger a notification)
  3. bugzilla:43840 (Echo should support user subscriptions to feeds (for newsletters and publications such as The Wikipedia Signpost))
  4. bugzilla:53564 (IP addresses should link to Special:Contributions instead of userpage)
  5. bugzilla:44787 (Allow excluding pages from the Page Linked notifications)
  6. bugzilla:46692 (Dismissing/removing notifications - a way to remove items from the list) [1]
  7. (A new Notification that someone has emailed you using Special:EmailUser) [2] (A lot of people don't register with their primary email account, or don't check it frequently. Some have userpage notes warning against using email if the matter is urgent. It's more common than you might guess! Even specifically mentioned at mw:Flow Portal/Use cases#User talk namespace)
  8. (Use Different Icons for Talkpage messages and Mentions. (See list of current icons at mw:Echo/Feature requirements#Notification Categories). To give a better visual clue on the flyout (and archive) on what just happened. - Use an @ sign icon for Mentions?)
  9. (disable Page Linked notifications for Reverts. Eg. When someone rollsback a page-blanking vandal.) [3]
  10. At Special:Notifications, change the max-width (currently 600px) to something larger. 60em is suggested.
  11. A better solution for accidental reverts, that get self-reverted within moments. (/Archive_5#Revert_notification and #Revert reverts below.)


Other items

Yellow Message indicator
  • Currently just a plain link to Usertalk. It Should link to either:
    • the first of unread messages
    • "changes since last viewed" (per old OBOD)


Inconsistent edit-summaries/headerlinks in Notifications for new talkpage messages, especially EdwardsBot
  • screenshot of the problem
  • In The Signpost deliveries, the Notification includes an edit-summary, and a subsection link.
  • In all(?) other newsletter deliveries, there is no edit-summary, and the link is just to [User talk:Quiddity] (no subsection).
  • Messages from [User:RFC bot], and sometimes messages from users, have the same problem.
  • I suspect this has something to do with 4-tilde signatures, but I can't narrow it down beyond that.


Inconsistencies between the links given in the Flyout and Special:Notifications and Email
  • Generally, many users are asking for consistency between what is linked in Flyout/Special/Email, and they prefer the additional links given in Special.
  • Additionally, the flyout is confusing, because the entire background is clickable, but there is no mousepointer-change or status-bar-hint for the destination. TMg explained it well here.
  • Related to bugzilla:47665 ( Echo notifications should have a larger clickable surface area) which has pertinent comments.
  • Update the Flyout/Special/Email documentation at mw:Echo/Feature requirements.
  • Also, there were a few complaints about the small size of the "View changes/View edit" and "[xx] [time] ago" text. Consider increasing it.


MediaWiki talk:Echo-blacklist
possibly someone should enact these 2 requests? or comment?
and more people should watchlist it.


What happens if someone turns off their Mention Notifications?


AfC bug


I'll nag Fabrice and the devs during the next few weeks, to look at this, and make bug tickets for things that don't already have one, and address the ones that do, and strike the ones that are fixed, and etc.

It's not complete, but I think it covers most of the important or multiple-requested items. Add or tweak items as needed, but try to keep it concise. I'm off into the last of sun now! and lunch... –Quiddity (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New notification "gesichtet" needed for deWP, plWP, ruWP, arWP etc

Hello, it would be really important to have a new notification "gesichtet" (pending change or meta:Flagged Revisions) for German Wikipedia. Really essential. (Probably also for other WPs with this extension: plWP, ruWP, arWP etc.) "Your edit has been sighted by user:X and is now visible" or something like that. On the other hand, "review"?-notifications do not work on german WP. And, please, before deploying to german WP, ask and announce! Thank you! I'm looking forward to it :-) (see also [4]) --Atlasowa (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T54510
Thanks to User:Quiddity, I learned of this related bugzilla request. I read there "abandoned by Matmarex: ... Reason: Somebody who knows at least one of the extensions should implement this. I give up." Currently "Assigned To: Nobody". This request was opened on 2013-08-04 by a polish Wikipedian, long before activation of notifications at plWP on Aug. 20th 2013.
Let me emphasize that this a really important feature. Flagged Revisions means that edits by new editors are not visible live on wiki, only after patrolling they appear. This can take hours or days (or weeks and even months on arWP!), which is frustrating of course. They get notified of a revert, which is also negative feedback. But you could enable notifications for acceptance of their edit (sighted), which would be positive feedback. Please do not activate another negative feedback mechanism on deWP unless you also activate a positive feedback for accepted edits!
@User:Fabrice Florin (WMF) Please compare this list meta:Flagged_Revisions#Flagged Revisions on Wikimedia projects with your mw:Echo/Release Plan 2013. Please do not ignore this issue any longer. Thank you. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlasowa: Bugzilla is confusing in this instance (and in general!). Bartosz Dziewoński (MatmaRex) originally submitted the bug itself. He then submitted one patch written by user:krenair (Change 62193) and his own patch (Change 79775). Then user:Aaron Schulz merged the first patch (Change 62193), and then Bartosz/Matma retracted ("abandoned") his own patch (Change 79775). Therefore, at least one patch has been installed into the FlaggedRevs codebase. Possibly that patch covers the entire request? That patch covers "rejected/reverted" Revision Notifications. The code for Approved Revisions Notifications (change 79775) is abandoned in gerrit as it doesn't account for some important cases. I've added this item to the Big List of Echo Bugs below, and nudged most of the relevant devs. –Quiddity (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Atlasowa, thanks for following up on your request for a 'Flagged Revisions' notification. It's a very reasonable proposal, and you make a good point that it would provide much-needed positive feedback to offset edit reversions. But new feature development for Echo has now ended for this release. We've all been re-assigned to other projects, and our meager development resources are limited to only bug fixes and final deployments. We have added your request on our wish-list for future releases, as Quiddity points out above, but we don't expect any major developments until next year. For now, we invite developers in your community to join forces with MatmaRex to build this Flagged Revisions Notifications, or any other special notifications which you would like to add on the German or Polish Wikipedias (see this Developer guide). Thanks again for your thoughtful recommendation, which I endorse, but sadly cannot act on at this time, due to limited resources. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrice Florin (WMF): I am no longer working on that. I was expecting the Foundation's team to follow up. (Also, I didn't get a mention for your comment here because of Template:Bug, which is another major issue that stayed unsolved.) Matma Rex talk 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of multiple edits

When a person does multiple edits on my talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia (but probably on other projects too), the "view changes" link only shows me the latest edit but not the latest edits while the old notification did give me a link to all changes done since the last time I viewed my talk page. Maybe you could fix that? Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 16:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this issue to the big list of bugs above. Thanks :) –Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: when I have multiple notifications (multiple edits on my user talk), the number still says "1" notification while there are more. Trijnsteltalk 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an instance of "bundling" - mw:Feature requirements#Bundling - it tries to bundle related notifications together, to prevent a deluge, eg. it should say "Tom Morris and 3 others posted on <your talk page>:" rather than giving you 4 notifications. However, there's a related bug listed above (#8) about how the "view changes" link isn't working ideally yet. –Quiddity (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to say that this Template:Bug seems to have been fixed in today's release ('Diff link in bundled message should show all diffs instead of just the last one'). Please let us know if it works for you :). Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

display error

Technical 13 mentioned you on Village pump (technical) talk page in "Where is .noticecolor:#F00 ...".
13 hours ago | View changes

The brackets are missing, the thread's name is "Where is .notice{color:#F00} coming from?"

Regards, mabdul 12:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A notification feature; maybe?

Please consider the merits of incorporating notifications through generic stalkwords which the user was able to choose which terms they wanted to stalk, and potentially serve; from a list available within the user preferences; like Admin, Helpme, Steward, Oversight, Checkuser, Bureaucrat, Revdel, and perhaps others forming service pools while examples like Template, Math, Medical, English, Chemistry, Biology, Religion, Politics, Legal, Copyright, MOS, BLP, HTML, and others would form specialized pools of expertise that a user might call in good faith, hoping for a timely and authoritative answer to be given. I believe this has good potential. Based on availability, and means.—John Cline (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This would require support for a page like Echo-stalkwords. I really like this idea, however, I'm concerned about abuse. How would we prevent trolls from spamming such words just to annoy those that stalk them? Also, I have a feeling that such a ticket requesting this would be resolved as a WONTFIX due to extremely high amount of resources it would require in order to make sure everyone get the notifications for all of the specified stalkwords. If these concerns can be addressed, I'd be happy to put the request up on bugzilla:. Technical 13 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have certainly raised some valid concerns and I look forward to seeing the effects of collaboration in compiling ideas to improve this. To mitigate the disruptive potential of trolls it seems prudent to tie this capability to autoconfirmed which should be as effective as semi-protection is in preventing trolls from damaging Wikipedia content. To mitigate the negative potential an unrestricted accrual of pings could have on a users desire to respond, it would be good if the ping would evaporate, or move to an archive for all requests appropriately marked as done, in keeping with a similar effect as that which occurs when {{Helpme}} is changed to {{Helpme-helped}} I can't address resource allocations as frankly that exceeds my pay grade. I bet we can find a way however.—John Cline (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This goal is probably better suited to WP:Flow than to Echo. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that response, and please accept my apologies for failing to notice your comment until now. I will pursue any continuation of this as a request to WP:Flow. Thanks again!—John Cline (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications across wikis

I was helping a Romanian Wiktiorian on a technical issue and found myself having to visit that site and place talkbacks. Can the notification system be tweaked to work across language wikis and sister sites? For example, pinging ta:User:Ganeshk should make notify show up on Tamil Wikipedia. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the planning page (mw:Editor Engagement/2013 strategy planning (Features)), but (if I understand it correctly) they can't even start thinking about allocating developer resources until the final parts of Unified Login are complete (m:Single User Login finalisation announcement is still undetermined). –Quiddity (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Quiddity. — Ganeshk (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: The Final Stretch

Hi folks,

I'm happy to say that we just completed our fourth release of Notifications on another two dozen wiki sites today: Albanian, Arabic, Azerbaijani, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Finnish, Galician, Greek, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuanian, Malay, Norwegian-Nynorsk, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Sorani Kurdish, Thai, Turkish and Welsh Wikipedias.

So we have now successfully released the Echo extension on most of the large Wikipedias (e.g. Chinese, Dutch, French, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish) and dozens more around the world -- with very positive community response, as summed up in this blog post.

Based on this favorable feedback, we now plan to release Notifications on most remaining wiki sites in a single day, on Tuesday, October 22. This includes about 200 Wikipedias we haven't enabled yet, as well as about 500 'sister projects', in all languages (e.g.: Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiquote, Wiktionary). This represents about 700+ sites total, leaving only a few wikis disabled, at their community's request.

If you are active in a community that doesn't have Echo enabled yet, we would be grateful if you could invite volunteers to help with translations and other tasks in this release checklist. If you have any questions or comments about enabling Echo on your site, please leave them on this release discussion page, or contact us directly.

Many thanks to our community liaison Keegan Peterzell and our developer Benny Situ for all their hard work in making these final releases possible. :) Best regards, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fabrice Florin (WMF), would you please respond to my request at Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#New notification "gesichtet" needed for deWP, plWP, ruWP, arWP etc? This is problem is now months old and i see no development at all. Instead, you have since deployed notifications on more WP language versions with activated flagged revisions. Why does nobody seem to care? Shouldn't the WMF be sensitive to flooding newbies with negative feedback (revert notifications) while holding off positive feedback (notifications of accepted edits that "go live")? This is frustrating. I do love the thanks and ping notifications, and i'm really concerned that notifications will not be enabled on german Wikipedia because WMF doesn't care to get things right before deploying. Frustrated: --Atlasowa (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Atlasowa, thanks for pinging me about your reasonable proposal for a 'Flagged Revisions' notification. I have responded above, as requested. In the meantime, as I told TMg, we encourage the German community to join our worldwide deployment on October 22, which is our best opportunity to deploy the tool on your site this quarter. If we miss that window, we would need to arrange a special German release at the end of the year or early next year, which may be tough to schedule, due to other deadlines. I think a first release of the basic Notifications tool would serve everyone's best interests, even without Flagged Revisions support, because it would motivate local developers to help build the feature you want. Thanks for your understanding, and we hope to deploy Notifications very soon on the German Wikipedia! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling pings when a user is blocked

Is there any merit to disabling a blocked user's ability to ping other users while they are blocked? I was in the peripheral of a discussion admonishing a blocked user from pinging others to accomplish their request by proxy and thought this would almost be a non issue if it did not exist as an ability. It is my opinion that noticing a blocked user's comments because they were on your whatchlist would constitute any subsequent action as appropriate because they could show that they have independent reasons for making the edits whereas this independence erodes after a ping has been activated. Is there any substance to considering this?—John Cline (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary. If a blocked user abuses the feature after being warned, their talk page access can just be revoked. I also don't see editing by proxy as being a big enough problem to worry about in this case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two clicks instead of one: Why?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58475

The new notifications are terrific but why do we have to press two clicks to find the diff when someone leaves a message in your talk page? It is so easy: Just allow the orange box to redirect to the diff instead of talking you just to the talk page. Please do not make Wikipedia worse, make it better. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors (especially less experienced ones) prefer seeing the actual messages rather than the wikicode diff. However, there might be a compromise option in taking you to the section most recently edited (but then what do you do with multiple messages/multiple sections?). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is, it is totally useless if users edit in previous sections, sections other than the last. How can you tell where is the message in such a case (in an example of 25 sections? You just cannot. You need a diff. Please make Wikipedia better: Keep what works and add new functionalities. Please do not remove useful characteristics. --FocalPoint (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bugzilla:54391 is related to (or completely covers) this. –Quiddity (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not covering my request. I am asking that the link in the orange box leads you to a diff, same as it was before, with one click. The other options, can still be there. Why remove a perfectly sensible function? --FocalPoint (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FocalPoint: I've made bugzilla:56475 to cover this. (Sorry about the earlier confusion, I thought the other bug getting fixed had shared code with this bug, hence I suggested they were related.) –Quiddity (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hover action to trigger Flyout

Hey Quiddity, are you aware of bugs that may ask for the flyout to show up when hovering instead than when clicking, for non-mobile versions of the site? :) --Elitre (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Elitre: I'm fairly sure there are no bugtickets for that feature-request. I also would oppose it personally, as that would make a giant flyout blink in-and-out almost every time I tried to navigate to my userpage or talkpage - that would get annoying rapidly! However, if you're asking because you, or someone else, dislikes the small size of the Notifications Badge, I can understand/agree with that - I'd suggest that the solution lies in the #Granularity suggestion below, which I'll write a bugzilla ticket for, next. :) –Quiddity (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert reverts

Hello. Picture the following: you accidentally revert an edit, notice, and then revert yourself. The person whose edit you reverted gets a notification, but when they go to the page, it's as they left it. What happened will become clear a few clicks later, but the immediate impression you get is a confusing one. That happened to Moe Epsilon and me today.

May I suggest that the system is adjusted so that if you revert a revert that you made, the notification sent to the other user is negated (if they haven't yet triggered the bubble from the red numeric indicator. If they have, it's too late). — Scott • talk 22:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something should be done about this, but I think making a notification disappear would add to the confusion, not lessen it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect notification about a self-revert

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58574

Hello,

I recently reverted my own edit on the Dutch Wikipedia (see here), but I received a notification ten hours later telling me FakirNL (a fellow Dutch Wikipedian) reverted the edit. The link "Wijzigingen bekijken" ("Show changes" in English) leads to my own revert. I've uploaded a screenshot of the notification. I currently use Windows Vista and Firefox 24. Please let me know if more information is needed.

Also, the word "door" ("by" in English) is missing. It should be "Uw bewerkingen op X zijn teruggedraaid door Y".

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did click the [2 bewerkingen terugdraaien] button (rollback-function), performing a zero change edit in the meantime. - FakirNL (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the report, I've filed bugzilla:56574. Legoktm (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Notification for an established account with no email address

We get regular cries for help at the Help desk and elsewhere from editors who have forgotten their password and have no email address configured. That feels harsh for someone with an established account. So how about a reminder notification after, say, 500 edits if an account still has no email address? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this does happen, it should contain a link to Wikipedia:Committed identity. Some people do not want to let Wikipedia know their email, but this will give them another option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:56028 I think. Legoktm (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granularity

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58476

The notifications bubble is a step in the right direction but still needs to be more granular. At present you just get a number - until you click it, it could be anything. Is that "1" a nice comment? Or someone reverting your edit? It causes a moment of uncertainty. I propose that the type of notifications should be displayed in the bubble, so that you don't need to wonder anything when it suddenly appears as you're editing, and can also instantly determine if it's something urgent that you need to look at.

Here are some examples. Demo note: the icons aren't the exact ones currently used, because I didn't know where to find those. And it's black on gray because the icon set I'm using isn't available in white, so didn't present enough contrast for a demo on red. So imagine that the following is white on red....

You're welcomed and receive a getting started message:

1 1

Your edit was reviewed and your user rights changed:

1 1

2 incoming links, 5 talk page comments, 2 thanks:

2 5 2

Someone reverted your edit and mentioned you:

1 1

I would suggest that in addition to this, if you hover over the bubble, it should present a tooltip stating its contents in words as an alternative to knowing what the icons mean. — Scott • talk 10:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea. +1.
(fwiw, I found the echo icons and thanks icon on git - and I've now uploaded them to commons, and added them to the documentation page at mw:Echo/Feature requirements#Notification Types). –Quiddity (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading the icons! Looking at them, I also think that talk messages and mentions should have different icons - an icon design for mentions based around "@" would be ideal, for obvious reasons. — Scott • talk 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott Martin: I got the icons wrong! I uploaded the PNGs instead of the SVGs. I've pinged the designers, and they should be sending me copies of the SVGs by Monday.
That's a good specific suggestion for a Mentions icon replacement. I'll add that to #8 in the feature request list, above. :) (The only problem I can think of, is that {{@}}} doesn't work as someone might guess it would. But that's a minor quirk.) –Quiddity (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like and support the first part of this with the icon, I oppose the hover as hover is bad for touch devices. Also, if this is implemented, I might never expand the fly-out again... xD Technical 13 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Textual alternatives are essential for graphical indicators. That problem would need to be engineered around. — Scott • talk 10:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think it would take up too much screen space, especially as the icon set grows and grows for different notification types. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you'd be worried about that. There's a long slab of empty space there (for me, even after I've wedged several custom links in on the right-hand side), and this proposal will hardly make a dent in it. Even then it will only be transient. — Scott • talk 14:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Martin: I've created bugzilla:56476 to cover this. As I noted there, and in a thread above, this idea would also be good for accessibility, for people who find the current Notifications Badge/growler too small to easily click on. :) –Quiddity (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thanks very much. I've added it to the bugs I'm watching. — Scott • talk 13:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: 'talkback' notification

I'd like to have the possibility of easily notifying someone about a response, without linking their user page or editing their talk page, perhaps something like the "thank" button. Any thoughts or ideas about this? Mathonius (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Flow project aims to improve exactly this aspect of discussions. We'll be working on finding out exactly how to implement these types of features via experimentation and feedback, starting very small with just a couple of WikiProjects that volunteer, over the coming months. See that main page for many more details. :) –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quiddity! That's great! :) Mathonius (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications for log entries

It would be nice if we could "thank" people for deletions, un-deletions, and other actions that show up in logs but are not edits per se. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion of a proposal related to this process at...

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#The revert notification encourages edit-warring, consider removing or modifying it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User mention should be prompted

Thanks for a nice tool that can promote better interaction on wiki. It will be great, if user mentions can be prompted if preceded by @, just like WP:Hotcat gadget does for categories.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding "page links" notification

Does the "page links" notification notify you of when an image you uploaded gets linked to an article? Or is it just for articles created in article space? Thanks, —  dainomite   19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, but that's one of the initial Goals of mw:Multimedia. I'm not sure if there's a specific timeline for that feature yet. –Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dainomite, thanks for your good question. As Quiddity points out, our multimedia team indeed plans to develop a new category of 'media file notifications', which would notify you when 'your file was used in article x'. We aim to start development in December 2013, with a likely release in January 2014. We will post here when that new notification is available. Thanks again, and be well :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks Quiddity and Fabrice Florin (WMF). This raises another question I just thought of. How will it work for users who upload files to commons and the files are linked on various wikipedias. Will the uploader on commons be notified that their new file is used on various wikipedias? Or will it be restricted locally so notifications wont leave the site? By that I mean an uploader on COM won't be notified if their file is linked on say the de wikipedia. Thanks again for the quick responses. Regards, —  dainomite   21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dainomite, the current plan is that if your file is used anywhere, you will receive a notification from Commons that it was used, most likely using the GlobalUsage extension to trigger the notification. However, you will not receive that notification on English or German Wikipedia, only on Commons, as we are not currently supporting cross-wiki notifications. Hope this helps. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I got it. Well, it sounds awesome and I can't wait until it's released. Thank you, —  dainomite   22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who chose not to receive some notifications

I read something about this in the archives, so my question is: am I right in assuming that, at the moment, the only way to have a list of users who opted-out from some Echo options (and to find out about which of them) is... manually building it (i.e., having such user to explicitly list themselves and their "undesired" options on a page)? --Elitre (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Elitre: In the thread where we got a specific number, it was due to a developer running a database search for us. (See the 3 links in the "What happens if someone turns off their Mention Notifications?" subsection, above in #Other items, for more details on that particular issue.) I'm not sure what the best or available options and ideas are (both short and long term). Someone should collate and research it all. (I would if I had time). –Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we just have a number, which is not really my concern at this time :) I guess that members of wikiprojects, for example, will simply want to find out if their colleagues are using these features or not and if it makes sense to ping or thank them. So... manual lists it is, IMHO! Thanks, --Elitre (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The revert notification encourages edit-warring, consider removing or modifying it

The discussion below was moved from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_revert_notification_encourages_edit-warring.2C_consider_removing_or_modifying_it. HelenOnline 15:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notification system that has been implemented relatively recently includes a function where users are notified when their edits have been reverted. I believe that this function is counter-productive, as it encourages edit-warring behaviour, and that the community should consider the removal of this feature, or at least modify the manner in which the information is displayed.

Prior to the implementation of this new system, the only way a user found out about their edits being reverted was to browse their personal watchlist. There, they have access to edit history links and can read edit summaries; in fact, the first thing they read is the edit summary, and from there onwards do they actually realise that their edit has been reverted. In other words, the user learns of the revert from the edit summary, which also happens to provide explanations beforehand. Alternatively, they might have been manually notified of the reason for the revert on their talkpage by an actual non-automated human, and invited to participate in a talkpage discussion. This new system, however, brings the user the news of being reverted first, as opposed to the reason for the revert. Since the user receives a notification along the lines of "(USER) has reverted your edits to (PAGE)", the first thing brought to the user's attention is the fact that they have been reverted, and this usually elicits an emotional response, meaning that they may be psychologically discouraged from thinking logically and rationally due to this mechanism.

This might be purely anecdotal, but I have seen a general trend of users react emotionally to reverts in recent days, and appear to no longer properly read edit summaries (which explain reasons for reverts). Often, re-reverts done by outburst may even be made with no proper explanation at all. It's as if the user's mind process now becomes

  • "Aww shit, this fucking guy just reverted my edit! I have to revert his revert, I'll show this cunt who's boss",

instead of

  • "Upon reading the edit summary, I've realised that he's reverted my edit because of (REASON), and honestly I (AGREE/DISAGREE) with his reasoning, and will proceed to (DO NOTHING/REVERT HIM)",

which should have been the usual thought process before the introduction of the notification system.

Furthermore, prior to the notification system, we would often see long-term editors revert one another due to disagreements, often within reason. This is because editors who spend more time on Wikipedia have a greater understanding of Wikipedia's policies and standard procedures, and generally are here to collaborate constructively, despite having conflicting points of view. However, now we have the case of new users or users who spend little time on the project receiving notifications of being reverted every time they log in to their account. In other words, they might be receiving notifications about reverts from months past, elicit an angry reaction, and then proceed to revert it (even though there might have been a lengthy talk page discussion that the user was unaware of, due to their inactivity). These users may also have more limited understanding of concepts such as WP:EW and WP:DE, and proceed to edit merely to fight a "war" or revert for the sake of reverting, instead of reasoning with others. Non-frequent users may also have forgotten about the edit and log in with the intention of doing something else, only to be reminded of the edit they did 3 months ago.

Due to the above reasoning, I believe that this new mechanism does more harm than benefit. If I am mistaken, I am willing to hear what other people have to say in regards to this. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in your analysis of the emotional reaction provoked by the notification. On the other hand, the new system helps prevent WP:OWN behavior, where a pass-by correction to an article not in your watch list would otherwise be silently reverted by someone preventing all changes to that article.
I think the best bet would be to add the edit summary to the notification; this way you get the old behavior available in the watch list, and the automatic supervision that doesn't require re-checking all your edits some time after making them. Diego (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only have my own reaction to go by but I am always surprised to be notified of reverts. If it was an edit that I was iffy about (eg, I wasn't an expert on the subject), I figure that the reverter knows the subject better. If I'm pretty sure that I was right, I go to the article and see what the problem was.
The two most common reasons I've found are 1) the reverter watches the article pretty intensively and there is no way my edit will stay if they don't approve of it or 2) the reverter objects to the way I worded something (like I wrote, "he jumped to his feet" and they preferred "he rose"). Now, not only is edit warring wrong but, in the case of #1, there is no way my version would ever "win". The other Editor just cares a whole heck of a lot more about this particular article than I do. In the case of #2, well, I'm not going to get into an edit war over the way a phrase is worded. In either case, if it is something I feel strongly about, I'll go to the article talk page but usually when I do so, my question receives no replies or only a reply by the Editor who reverted me. So, reverting a revert will only have bad consequences and I just move on.
I might feel differently if it was an article I had created or had written a large portion of. But this hasn't happened yet.
So, while a revert notice might provoke an emotional reaction, if the Editor takes 15 seconds to look into it, I think they will usually find it's nothing to get worked up about. There are 4+ million articles and getting upset about one edit on one of them is just counter-productive. Unless the reverter is hounding you, it's best to just go on to the next article. Liz Read! Talk! 12:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It takes you 15 seconds to look into it, and realise it's nothing to get upset over, because you're presumably a constructive editor who is able to stay rational. There are those who do not have a constructive mindset, and all it takes is a notification, and they'll get worked up to the point where it doesn't even matter what the edit summary says. I'd like to say that in most cases I've seen this happen more often with users with red username links, but then that would be discriminatory against users with red username links. It's WP:BITE-y, but users with sub-500 edits do form a slightly overwhelming over-representation of cases I've seen. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to see much more clear evidence to support removal, but I would strongly support making the notification tell us "A reverted your edit to B with the edit summary "content of edit summary".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't mind it being modified so that it also includes the edit summary. However as it currently stands, it has the potential to trigger bad responses in some cases. Not all cases of course, as Liz has earlier mentioned, since exceptions such as hers do obviously exist, however the potential to trigger bad reactions in some cases is enough to argue towards some kind of a change. I don't have any conclusive evidence, but from anecdotal experiences, it's essentially what I've seen time and time again.
To reinforce my point, which of the following is more likely to stir up an emotional response?
  • Your edit on Japanese war crimes has been reverted by Benlisquare. (Show changes) (in bold text, the first time the notification is displayed)
  • 21:00, 31 February 2027 Benlisquare (talk | contribs) . . (20,000 bytes) (-250) . . (Undid revision 123456789 by ExampleUser (talk) to last version by SmartGuy: According to the Washington Post reference, it should be 1945, not 1947. Please provide a citation for this date, or explain on the talk page)
Even if the notification was modified to bring the message across a bit better, such a change would significantly improve the purpose of having automatic notifications. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fuhghettaboutit. The notification is useful. For one thing, if I removed vandalism or modified an unhelpful change (in my view) and I am notified there is a revert, it may cause me to leave a talk page message, or go to AIV, ore take other appropriate action (but not, i hope, to edit war). Adding the edit summary would significantly improve the notification. (it would also improve the notification on a talk page change, letting me skip the step of checking the history in many cases) It might well help reduce that emotional tendency to start or continue an edit war, especially if the editor left a good summary. DES (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the notifications put the name ("...has been reverted by AmericanPatriot1994", i.e. "that guy that argued with me last year at the List of Taliban commanders RfC discussion, therefore I hate him") ahead of the reason (i.e. "my edit was reverted because it was unsourced"). I think this is something that also needs to be addressed. I'm hoping that the first thing anyone sees is the edit summary; is there any helpfulness in telling people first-up who made the revert? Focus should be placed on content, and not the contributor. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree right back at DESiegel with why this would be useful. It would certainly let "me skip the step of checking the history in many cases". If I saw an edit summary by someone I trust/know is a regular and non-vandal/is some who will act sanely, I may not need to visit to see at all. For example, if I had reverted some vandalism on last, and saw that DESiegel reverted my edit with the edit summary: "revert to earlier, better version", I would see no need to visit. If we lose the name, that same edit summary would not allow me to skip, because it might be by a sneaky vandalism account, or even if I dont know the user, I migght skip, but not if the name bears the hallmarks of a spam account. We learn much by seeing a user's name. On the other hand, I would not necessarily be against making the edit summary appear first, before the username, as you suggest, but I don't think it's very natural. Hmm, how would that work? I suppose it could be Your edit on ARTICLE was reverted with the edit summary: "...", by USERNAME", but I think that format is rather awkward. Anyway, let me run something else by you:

In thinking about why you are seeing more counter-reverts and edit wars, I am now thinking that it's inevitable; of course you are, and your anecdotal experience just has to be correct. However, I don't think it's because people are not forced by process to see the edit summary first, before they can knee-jerk-revert by finding it through their watchlist, or at least that is only a small part of it. The reason is far more likely attributable to the fact that the vast majority of users, prior to Echo's implementation, who saw reverts at all, were experienced users – those who i) knew enough to add pages they edited to their watchlists; ii) knew how to follow their watchlist; iii) were in the habit of following their watchlists; and iv) actually, actively, scanned daily for such reversions. Now every user with an account who has notification of reverts turned on is being passively informed of every single one. So I think the fact they are seeing it through notification and not through their watchlist (where the edit summary would be seen first), is only a small part of the story.

Anyway, I find it massively useful, even if it has unintended baggage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, and I believe "mostly" correct observation. What I would think would be a proper adjustment to invoke a healthy response is a three part change. First, replace (SHOW CHANGES) with (DISCUSS) (linking to a new section on the talk page). Second, add a sub-line that offers the edit summary. Finally, offer the (SHOW CHANGES) after the edit summary. This encourages discussion over edit-warring reversion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If good editor G reverts bad editor B, maybe telling B will elicit an unconstructive reaction -- maybe. But if B reverts G, then G is advised that something is going on and may be able to move things forward. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I prefer information to concealment, so I think the notification is good. Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion to include the edit summary in the notification is a good idea. --Stfg (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Technical 13's idea of a discussion link is another good one, though I'm not sure about making it an edit link, rather than a link to the talk page – I think this might confuse many newish editors (though maybe that's okay too). By the way, I'm going to drop a "see discussion related to this page" link at Wikipedia talk:Notifications.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with OP I was searching for a thread about this as otherwise I would have started one. I agree absolutely the red revert notifications encourage edit warring. From now on I will rather do manual reverts which sometimes causes me to perform incomplete reverts and make even more of a mess. Psychologically when people see red, well they see red. If they care enough they will be watching the page and they will see it anyway, so why antagonize them unnecessarily? HelenOnline 07:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I'm aware, there is a notification even if you do a manual revert, without touching the undo link. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think so. I waited for it to happen again which it did today and I did not get any notification. There also doesn't seem to be a separate notification setting for it which I could have opted out of. HelenOnline 13:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with OP. Per WP:BEANS, I don't want to go into too much detail, but this has been very helpful in dealing with clones of editors in User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. I sometimes catch him before he rotates his IP, when, before WP:ECHO, that was very rare. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a less antagonistic manner of notification (e.g. using a different color than red) change that? HelenOnline 06:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The color doesn't bother me, although there are advantages to the color being significantly different for each type of notification, so one can scan the notifications for different types. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the #Granularity thread above, for some possibilities in that direction. (Comment above, or Vote/CC yourself on the bug, to indicate popular demand for the feature.) –Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Wikipedia talk:Notifications would a better place for this discussion due to the presence of developers and other parties interested in discussing the implementation details of notifications. If it peters out here it will be automatically archived and vanish without accomplishing anything. May I suggest that someone uproots this section and puts it there, leaving a pointer note here? — Scott • talk 13:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping from edit summary

Would it be possible for a user to be notified if his/her user page, talk page, or contributions were mentioned in an edit summary? And would it be a good idea?

I was thinking I would like to be notified if someone mentioned User:Arthur Rubin/IP list in an edit summary, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble and/or a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bug. Matma Rex talk 16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page link notifications

I really like receiving page link notifications on an article I created, Social network, because so many editors link to it inappropriately (usually referring to Social networking services). However, it's painful to logon and see a notification that one specific article AND a bunch of other unspecified articles have been linked to Social network with no way for me to determine which of several hundred linked articles have been recently linked to Social network. I'm wondering if the notifications could be changed so that each individual article linked has a separate, specific notification? Thanks to all who have worked on the notification project. For the most part, it's been a positive addition to WP! Meclee (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting idea.
Fwiw, the keyword the team is using for this feature is "bundling", and you can see details about its current implementation at mw:Echo/Feature_requirements#Bundling
I guess we'd need to get some research into how many Pagelink Notifications the most active-recipients are getting, in order to determine what repercussions unbundling them, would have. @DarTar: do you know if this would be easy or time-consuming to do?
I also wonder if there are other Wikipedia:Notifications#Features that we might consider leaving unbundled. –Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much bandwidth to look into this but I also don't think we need to spend a lot of cycles doing data analysis to answer that question. I believe unbundling pagelink notifications would not produce any damage in terms of frequency to anyone but a fairly small group of "special" editors. This is my reasoning:
  • pagelink notifications only target active page creators, not article contributors, so a relatively small proportion of our entire editor base.
  • they may become an issue only when articles are linked too rapidly from other pages
  • the pace of link accumulation for existing pages is too slow to be of any concern
  • the only real concern is for breaking news articles where links may be accumulating rapidly for articles created from scratch.
  • it's plausible to assume that we don't have many active page creators who routinely create these types of pages that get massively linked in a very short amount of time.
  • the only other exception is bulk page creators (currently the #1 recipient of pagelink notifications is a user from svwiki who mostly does just that, and this user is an outlier). These users should be aware of what happens as a result of bulk page creation, given the nature of their activity, so they will probably mute pagelink notifications anyway.
If this line of reasoning holds, I think we can go ahead and change the defaults for pagelink without seeking further evidence. I'd be obviously happy to be proved wrong on the above assumptions :) DarTar (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DarTar. Good thoughts.
The reason I'm hesitant, are comments #0 and #6 at bugzilla:44787. (#0 = linked translations. #6 = editors who help out with WP:AfC and are not personally interested in the article-topics, of which they might have created anywhere from dozens up to low-hundreds). Perhaps that ought to be fixed/resolved somehow, first? Your thoughts or alternative suggestions would be welcome. :) –Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge watchlist into Notifications

Why you don't merge Watchlist into Notifications? When a page on our watchlist changed, notifications inform us.--چالاک (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A complete merge would make notifications unusable - I have over 400 pages on mine (which is hardly any, compared to some people) - so would never stop receiving notifications. On the other hand, I do quite like the idea of there being an option to set a notification flag on specific items when editing your watchlist, for pages that you're exceptionally interested in watching changes to (perhaps when monitoring an ongoing vandalism situation). That would definitely be useful. — Scott • talk 10:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott Martin: Sounds like you want a watchlist for your watchlist. It wouldn't take long to scan through a watchlist to see what's up with articles that a person is exceptionally interested in. If an editor has a long watchlist, he or she should consider trimming it. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patronizing advice there. Rather than telling people how they ought to be using one of our underperforming maintenance tools, why don't you contribute something to bug 5875, regarding being able to create multiple watchlists, which has been open since 2006? — Scott • talk 10:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta like the idea of multiple watchlists I must admit. I just scotched the last one when it got to 10,000 and became too long to load on slow connections...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of reasons why they're a good idea - for example, I'd like to be able to watch every page I've ever created, to both protect against vandalism and also see how my creations fare over time (the history of redirects is often interesting). However, if I were to keep all the trivial stuff like redirects and talk page archives on my watchlist, it would clutter it up too badly. Having multiple watchlists would allow me to file stuff like that away somewhere that I would only need to check occasionally, rather than on the main watchlist that's my primary engagement with the project. And so on. I also think that even having multiple watchlists wouldn't obviate the utility of being able to set special page notifications, either - notifications appear while you're editing, meaning you don't have to go and look at your watchlist at all. — Scott • talk 10:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple watchlists (and cross-wiki watchlists) are a frequently mentioned, and long-wished-for feature. mw:Watchlist wishlist and WP:Cross-wiki watchlists are the most uptodate listings that I know of.
The only enhancement I've heard of, that comes close, is User:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist (note I haven't tried it ever).
Personally, I have... let's see... 8,885 pages on my watchlist as of today (I've been trying to unwatch things, for the last few months, so it's lower than it was). That gives me "176 changes in the last 24 hours". I'd love to have two watchlists (that I could designate/organize however I pleased. I'd go with "high-velocity discussion boards" on one, and everything else on the other. But each editor would surely go with an individual setup). More than two would get confusing, or I'd be more likely to procrastinate checking one of them. –Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Het hoofdje" on the Dutch Wikipedia

On the Dutch Wikipedia (nl.wikipedia), I received a notification about a new message: "X heeft een bericht op uw overlegpagina achtergelaten onder het hoofdje ..." 'Het hoofdje' is very uncommon and looks quite strange. Please consider replacing it with the more usual 'het kopje'. I'd have done it myself, but I don't know where the translations are kept. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathonius: It took a while, but I found the pages at translatewiki. There are 2 sets though:
Hope that helps. (I'm totally unfamiliar with translatewiki. I found it quite confusing looking around! I eventually found Echo via the Main Wikimedia extensions listing.) –Quiddity (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've now applied for translator rights there. Mathonius (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple signatures break mention notifications

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58739

I don't think that edit notified me. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biosthmors and I have confirmed that an edit containing two signatures does not send notifications, at least if the mention is before the first time stamp. I didn't see anything related in Bugzilla, but I'm not especially familiar with Echo's bugs. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'll create a new bug.
Somewhat relatedly, see comments #9, #16, and #20, at bugzilla:53132. Complicated issues. –Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps

When I look at my notifications I see the timestamp as:

  • X minutes ago
  • X hours ago
  • Yesterday
  • and only then by date (but no time-of-day)

Is it at all possible to see the time-and-date consistently?

BTW I love this feature and don"t know how I lived without it before it came along. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see what you mean. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be, though.
Notes: This is only on the Special:Notifications page, and is documented in the "Sections" subsection of mw:Echo/Feature requirements#All notifications.
Whereas the flyout only/consistently gives the "'time elapsed' indicator", as documented in the "Timestamp" subsection of mw:Echo/Feature requirements#Flyout.
As a tangential note, in Flow we're currently (experimentally) using 'time elapsed' as the default display, but if you hover over that info then it transforms into a specific timestamp. e.g. I'll ask if they share the same code, or background research, or what. –Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of related: any thoughts about doing something similar to Stack Overflow (and numerous other sites), where you can hover over the "time elapsed" to see the actual timestamp? For example, <span title="2013-11-11 22:19:50Z" class="relativetime">1 min ago</span> produces "1 min ago". Theopolisme (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Notifications&oldid=581246482"