Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project

Prototype: Automatic Topic Subscriptions

The idea of becoming automatically subscribed to discussions you participate in has been floating around since Manual Topic Subscriptions were first introduced.

Now, there is a prototype ready we would value you all trying to see how the "automatic topic subscription" experience could look and work.

If you are interested, below is the information you will need to:

1. Try the prototype and
2. Share feedback about the prototype

If any questions come up as you are attempting to try the prototype, please post them here...it is likely someone is wondering something similar to what you are. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying the prototype

1. On a desktop / laptop computer, visit: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/2f3d9efbec/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
2. Create an account by clicking the Create account link. Note: this is a test wiki so you will not be able to log in using the same username you use on other projects.
3. Return to https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/2f3d9efbec/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
4. Start a new discussion
5. Comment in an existing discussion
6. Disable being automatically subscribed to the discussions you start and/or comment in

Note: for ease of testing, the popup appears every time you get auto-subscribed. In the production version, the popup will only appear once. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sharing Feedback

Once you have tried the prototype and you are ready to share what you think of it, please:

1. Add a comment in this discussion with answers to the following questions:
   1. What did you find unexpected about how the prototype looks and functions?
   2. What do you appreciate about the prototype?
   3. What do you wish was different about the prototype?

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF):How to enable this on this wikipedia? Greatder (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

hi @Greatder – you can enable the Automatic Topic Subscription beta feature on your account by doing the following:

1. Using the desktop site, visit: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
2. Confirm the "Discussion tools" beta feature is enabled
3. Visit: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing
4. Find the "Enable topic subscription" setting and enable it by clicking the checkbox that appears next to the setting
5. Now, find the the "Automatically subscribe to topics" setting
6. Click the checkbox that appears next to the "Automatically subscribe to topics" setting
7. Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing page
8. On the desktop site, start a new discussion on a talk page or comment in an existing discussion
9. Notice after publishing the new discussion topic or comment described in "Step 8.", you see that you've become automatically subscribed to the discussion you just started or commented in
10. ✅ That's it

Can you please comment here if you run into any issues doing the above? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PPelberg (WMF)! I will be testing it for now and will report (if) I find something unusual. Greatder (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I will be testing it for now and will report (if) I find something unusual.

Wonderful and that sounds great, @Greatder. Also, if you encounter any questions, please just ping me or @Whatamidoing (WMF). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Script

Hi! I created a script (here) for toggling all the subscribe buttons on a page, because I find the subscribe tool notifications more useful than the watchlist. Enjoy! ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What a neat idea, @Qwerfjkl! Once I install the script, what should I expect to see when I visit a talk page at en.wiki? A button/link of some sort that enables me to subscribe to all of the discussions present on the page?

I ask the above having tried both installation "Method 2" and "Method 3" that you described here ^{[1] [2]} tho I'm still not noticing any changes when I visit a talk page like this one... PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): Hi! You should see a 'subscribe all' link under the 'Tools' section on the left-hand navigation bar (at least on Vector). ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it! I see the Subscribe all link now. However, when I click it, I'm not seeing:

A) The [ subscribe ] affordances on the page turn to the [ unsubscribe ] state

B) The pages I had not been subscribed to appear within Special:TopicSubscriptions

...does the above sound unexpected to you?

Thank you for your help troubleshooting this! PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange. I get a bunch of notifications saying You have (un)subscribed. Do you get any errors in your console log? (ctrl+⇧ Shift+j on Windows) ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): I.e.:

 ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to look into this, @Qwerfjkl. Here is what I'm seeing in my browser's (Chrome) console after: 1) Loading this page and clicking the 2) Subscribe all link. Do you see anything that could help explain the issue I'm experiencing? Also, if there is any other information I can help provide to make debugging this easier, please let me know!

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): Okay, I've added a few console.log()s.
If you re·run it the console should contain:

Links from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/subscribeall.js&action=edit:
[object HTMLCollection]

13VM1307:13 subscribeall.js: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project

The 13VM1307:13 appears on the right, and will probably be different for you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Location of subscribe link

Once upon a time, the section edit link was right justified, but then it was moved to immediately following the section title for... user experience reasons I cannot remember and I can't find the discussion on the matter. Does anyone remember the motivation for the change? I'm just wondering if it should be taken into account regarding the placement of the subscribe link. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I remember the change, but I don't remember the reason for it. It might have been a way to simplify the technical side.

Jess (the designer) is looking at rearranging several things, and that might be one of them. I'm calling this mw:Talk pages project/Usability, and hopefully we'll get a few screenshots/mockups posted in the next few days. One of the ideas is to add more information/features (e.g., a permalink to the section) in a ⋮ kebab menu. If people primarily use the [reply] buttons, and if automatic topic subscriptions turns out to be a good thing, then even the [edit source] button could be "hidden" in a drop-down menu. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, if a right-justified link is considered OK now, I'd rather have the edit link there and the subscribe link next to the title or somewhere else. But... it would probably be too much churn to the user experience at this point. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 deployment

Hello, all,

As an update on our October discussion about the #Reply tool status, we're cleared for takeoff...in January. The [reply] tool (nothing else) will be deployed default-on for all editors some time in January. Since I expect most questions (How do I turn it off? Why doesn't it work on this page?) to end up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), I've just posted links to the relevant help pages over there. The discussion at VPM in November didn't raise any questions that would make me concerned about everyone using this. (That's also the place to go if you dislike the appearance of the [reply] button.)

Hopefully this will really get out the door in January. It's been a long time coming. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: Realistically, I think Tuesday, January 11th is the earliest possible day. NB that I don't expect it to happen that day, either, but I think we can safely rule out any deployment here before then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Will this progress be brought to mobile too?

Progress on mobile seems to be stalled. Unlike desktop commenting on mobile offers no link, ping, bold, italic buttons. Everything is source only mode. Greatder (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Great question, @Greatder. The mw:Editing Team will soon begin work on bringing improvements, like the ones you mentioned above, to mobile web talk pages.

You might value reading this page which offers details about the plans we have for making it easier for people to use mobile talk pages in productive ways.

Also, if that page brings any new questions to mind, please ping me here on this talk page. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I hope discussions can be expanded and shrinked like reddit. It will make discussions a lot easier to navigate.(and auto reply pings) Greatder (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you say a bit more here, @Greatder? When you say, "... discussions can be expanded and shrinked like reddit." are you referring to be able to collapse and expand discussions (read: h2 sections)? Threads within discussions? Something else?

And about auto reply pings: would it be accurate for us to understand you suggesting this feature as a strategy for increasing the likelihood someone will see, and ultimately respond to, the comment you are leaving for them? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with this - no edit summaries

I think that editors should be able to leave edit summaries when replying. The tool prevents me from doing this. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If you click "advanced" below the edit box you will see a place to enter an edit summary. Whether it should be hidden by default is a different matter. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm told it's not automatically available in order not to distract new users. IMHO we should want them to see it and get the idea they should be using it. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. Edit summaries should not be seen as a distraction, but as an integral part of leaving a comment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

See my discussion here.[1]. Are people with no experience with watchlists or even the actual Wikipedia encyclopedias making decisions about this? Doug Weller talk 17:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware of this practice. I don't think edit summaries are relevant to leaving a comment. What should be written besides "reply"? Update: I read the linked discussion at mw:Talk:Talk pages project and am not convinced that we need to encourage such edit summaries. It also doesn't seem to be a widespread community practice, although there is a subset of editors doing it (from a random survey of discussion pages). If I need to figure out what a comment on my watchlist is, I use User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/inlineDiffDocs to expand the diff inline.

On the other hand: EDITSUMCITE does seem to mention talk pages (which surprised me), and I can see how watchlists and contribs lists would be more useful. Overall, though, I don't think the convenience is worth it. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There's just a small set of users who use edit summaries for talk page comments, so the field should not be made visible by default. Maybe there could be an opt-in feature that makes it visible by default, as in reply-link and CD. – SD0001 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are getting this "small set of users" nonsense from? Nearly every editor here uses an edit summary on nearly every page - just look at the page history of any page - even Enterprisey is using edit summaries! Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(Replied there.) Enterprisey (talk!) 11:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not true for most users while adding new talk page comments (which is the only thing reply tool supports). In any case, I don't think an edit summary like this is helpful. – SD0001 (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

They are very useful when you want to be sure that a point you are making in the discussion is recorded somehow in the history. This can be particularly useful when discussing issues involving sanction areas, NPOV/RS etc areas, vandalism and more. Sure, I often use just C for comment if I don't think it merits a description in the edit summary. And of course there's watchlists, where edit summaries on discussion pages can be very useful. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As a thread gets longer, the tool keeps indenting until it's all squeeze to the right -I haven't yet seen what happens if people continue, does it have a version of "od"? Doug Weller talk 15:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no "outdent" built-in (it's been requested, but not designed or built yet). However, if you reply to an earlier comment, it will align your comment with the one you're replying to, so you can work around this limitation. (This depends upon the discussion complying with WP:LISTGAP, so sometimes it won't.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

On the open question of whether custom edit summaries should be encouraged more, I think it's always useful to see what experienced editors have actually been doing. Here's a sample of the latest behavior in the article Talk: namespace only:

1. Origin
2. [no edit summary used]
3. [no edit summary used; also, unsigned]
4. what do do with plural
5. incoherent and wp:NOTAFORUM
6. [no edit summary used]
7. [no edit summary used]
8. other cases
9. : The Wright Flyer is listed in the examples...
10. [no edit summary used]
11. +reply
12. [no edit summary used]
13. [no edit summary used]
14. [no edit summary used]
15. cmt
16. Reply [used Reply tool']
17. [no edit summary used]
18. replies and advice
19. [no edit summary used]
20. This one no longer is.
21. Mimicking others in reverts
22. [no edit summary used]
23. RM
24. [no edit summary used]
25. [no edit summary used]
26. [no edit summary used]
27. [no edit summary used]
28. [no edit summary used]
29. [no edit summary used]
30. Reply [used Reply tool]
31. update
32. leading doctors though
33. [no edit summary used]
34. more comments
35. [no edit summary used]
36. any further issues?
37. Eugène: Piliuona → Kruonis → Ziezmariai → Strosiunai → Mijaugonys? → Rykantai → Trakai
38. copying IP reply from my talk page and replying
39. [no edit summary used]
40. more comments
41. urgh.
42. ::I googled "Sisak children concentration camp" and this page was the first hit. ~~~~
43. [no edit summary used]
44. no.
45. Reply [used Reply tool]

I eliminated any edit that created a new section using &action=edit&section=new, because the 2010 wikitext editor doesn't permit custom edit summaries in that case (the Reply tool's counterpart, the New Discssion tool, does), and all of the edits that used scripts (e.g., Twinkle, AFCH, various WikiProject rating scripts), and edits that didn't involve a comment. I attempted to include only those edits that could have been made with the Reply tool, but it was a manual process, so I probably misclassified a few. All of these edits were made by editors with >500 edits (WP:EXTCONFIRMED).

As you can see, about half of the edits didn't use any edit summary at all, or used only general edit summaries, like "cmt" or "more comments". Based on the ::formatting, two of them seem to have copied and pasted their comment into the edit summary.

Overall, the existing behavior does not seem to me to be very strong evidence that experienced editors consider custom edit summaries to be a critical component of participating in a discussion on a talk page.

For comparison, I did a separate search, looking specifically at edits made with the Reply tool. This search showed 100% edit summaries (because it defaults to "Reply"), of which almost 7% were custom edit summaries. It looked like a handful of editors use the custom edit summary option regularly, and others occasionally. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• The edit summary option setting is sticky. If you click the "Advanced" link then it reveals the edit summary. Once you've done this, future replies will show the edit summary by default.

My view is that the interface should not use the word "Advanced" for this. This suggests that there's a bundle of advanced options whereas it just seems to conceal the edit summary. The option should be more clearly labelled as Edit summary (hide) or Edit summary (show).

Most of the time, a default edit summary of "reply to <user>" will be fine. The evidence presented by Whatamidoing (WMF) shows that this default would be superior to current manual summaries as they are usually blank.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The word "advanced" is confusing. It makes much more sense for the label to clearly state what it does. I'd also prefer it if the word "reply" wasn't there when I click it - what's the point? Doug Weller talk 10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"More options"? Enterprisey (talk!) 11:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I was suggesting "More options" as a label for that part, assuming the developers will someday want to put more stuff in there than just the edit summary. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if there aren't more options, that would be confusing. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that "Reply" is a very reasonable default edit summary for a reply on a talk page. I would only need to alter that if I needed to somehow belabour or highlight a point, ping someone silently, or make my particular post stand out in View History. In all other situations - especially for new users - it is what it says on the tin: a Reply. I do, however, think Edit summary (hide)/(show) is an excellent proposal. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply is fine for a default if you don't want to add your own. But if there is any way to not have it show when you click on whatever it will say when we want to actually make an edit summary, it would be nice. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind it autofilling with reply, but I would like this to default appear for all. We want to try to inculate leaving an edit summary into new editors as quickly as possible, and having it hidden as an "advanced option" (which it's not) is counter to that. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool not necessarily activated by magic word?

Resolved

mw:Extension:DiscussionTools#Reply tool and mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Replying say that the Reply Tool is available on, among other pages, pages with the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word, but I find that the tool is not necessarily available on such pages. For example, after I added the magic word in my sandbox, my sandbox was enhanced with a "New section" button but no "[ reply ]" buttons. Am I missing something?

Also, pasting the quotation above from rich text into wikitext, I for the first time encountered the message You pasted content with rich formatting. Would you like to convert this formatting to wikitext?, followed by DiscussionTools' helpfully adding the markup I would have lost. Thanks!

—2d37 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

hi @2d37 – we appreciate you spending the time to experiment with these new tools and coming here to share the experience you're having with them so far!

Now, as it relates to ...no "[ reply ]" buttons. appearing on your sandbox page, are still experience this issue?

The Reply Tool seems to be appearing for me, as evidenced by the comment I made using it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @PPelberg (WMF). I see the "[ reply ]" buttons there now. The issue appears to have been fixed. —2d37 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful – I'm glad to hear it ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool appears to use wrong list type after bulleted comments

In Special:Diff/1064959257, I used the Reply Tool to reply to an RfD nomination, after there were already two replies using '*'-list syntax, and the Reply Tool, rather than adding a new '*'-list item, created a new ':'-list. I've recreated this behavior at User talk:2d37/sandbox, from Special:Diff/1065551849 to Special:Diff/1065552134.

I guess the tool could see the '*' replies as a '*'-list inside the nominator's post. Is this an accepted limitation of the Reply Tool that I should keep in mind? It could use the signatures in the '*'-list to decide that they're separate comments, but maybe that would be unreliable?

—2d37 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T259865

Support for "voting-style" discussions is a known limitation. The devs have been thinking about a new magic word that could be used to identify when this behavior is wanted (e.g., in RFCs) and when it's not (e.g., most of the time). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Clicking a collapsed subscription notification doesn't do a thing I liked anymore

At some point, clicking a notification like "5 new replies on [topic]" would take me to the subscribed thread and highlight all the new replies. Now it just takes me to the top of the thread, and only highlights if I expand the notification and click each reply individually. Is this something that was removed on purpose? JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay we value you coming here to report this issue. The functionality you are describing was not removed on purpose, but rather caused by a bug (phab:T299813) that should be fixed next week. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's all I needed to know, thank you! JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You got it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading the task timeline correctly, the issue was opened just 30 minutes before I finally decided to make this comment (after noticing it but misattributing the cause on January 8), which, wow, what are the odds! JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A delightful coincidence indeed ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay a quick update: the fix for this issue should arrive at en.wiki tomorrow, 27-Jan-2022. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply Tool as Opt-Out and Upcoming Work

Hi y'all – as we prepare to offer the Reply Tool as an on-by-default feature at en.wiki on desktop, the Editing Team thought you would value knowing about the work we'll continue doing to improve the Reply Tool and to, more broadly, make it easier for people to use talk pages in productive ways.

With the above said, below is a non-exhaustive list of the upcoming work we have planned. We would valuing knowing if anything here prompts thoughts, questions, etc.

Upcoming Talk Page Work

• Reply Tool: most immediately, the Editing Team is working on an enhancement to the Reply Tool that will alert you, in real time, when new comment(s) are posted in a discussion you are drafting a comment within. Follow the development and/or share your feedback about it.
• New Discussion Tool: we are finishing up work on a "hint" that offers experienced volunteers using the New Discussion Tool for the first time a quick way to switch back to the existing new section experience.
• Topic Subscriptions: Improvements so that you are notified when a discussion you are subscribed to is closed using Template:Archive top.
• Mobile: In the coming weeks, the team will begin working on a set of improvements to mobile web talk pages. This work will include introducing edit notices to mobile talk pages.
• Usability Improvements: The Editing Team has started designing a set of optional changes to how talk pages appear. These changes are intended to make it easier for people who are new to recognize and use talk pages as places to communicate with others. They are also intended to make it easier for people who are experienced to more quickly assess what conversations on a given talk page are worth focusing on. You can review the early design concepts we are exploring here.
• Meta: the Editing Team will also be investigating the Possible strange widespread vandalism of talk pages. More context here.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Dumb question -- how can I opt out of this? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion takes you to the relevant part of your prefs. (It may not be visible yet, unless you have the Beta Feature enabled.) @Xaosflux has added this to the documentation. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion tools hiding error messages?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T301845

I came across Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disappearing chunks of talkpage text where some editors using Discussion Tools (including me) do not see an error message about an unmatched <ref> tag when viewing Special:Permalink/1071912592. Perhaps there is some kind of race condition? isaacl (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: are you getting this with only reply tool enabled, or only if all of the DT experiments are enabled? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

For me, I didn't realize the errors only appear on talk pages if you enable them by adding a CSS rule to your personal style file (as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 195 § Disappearing chunks of talkpage text). However the last post in that thread refers to phab:T301845 being opened to fix the problem in general. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: ok thanks - don't see that as a "reply tool rollout" blocker, yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess it can affect discussions on Wikipedia namespace pages? References aren't used often there, but it does happen. Given that a fix has been merged and I think is currently awaiting or undergoing quality assurance testing (I'm not sure how to read the Phabricator task status), personally I suggest waiting until the fix is released. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This patch is up for QA review. My guess is that it's likely to be fixed on wiki by next WP:THURSDAY. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Gamma Testers

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296645

Watchlist notice opened for final gamma test. As this has been advertised we are assuming no blocking tasks unless new issues are reported here or at phab. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Apologies if this isn't an appropriate question here but, why is it called the "Gamma test" instead of "beta test"? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I suspect because since it's been an opt-in functionality for some time, that was the alpha test. This is more like a brief third tranche just short of global opt-out Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the beta test already completed - but we pushed back that we wanted more testing, so have gone for a third test wave - all of the functional requirements are expected to be met already from the beta test, this is really a last chance to raise blocking bugs before deployment. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Once it's been fully rolled out and everyone's got it, we're going to call it Omicron! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

*Ba dum tss* ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T302257

There is a function that I would like to be in the reply tool that hasn't been added yet. That is that the reply tool doesn't see any stylization after you add your signature and thinks that you didn't add your signature if you add anything, resulting in a double signature, one with the styling and one without. For example, if I were to make my comment small, if I add </small> after my signature to make my entire comment small, it thinks I didn't add my signature and inserts it again. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I've opened phab:T302257 on this. I don't think it should be considered a blocking bug, but should be looked in to. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you sign up for the Gamma Test? I'm interested. J390 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@J390: Preferences -> Beta Features -> Select the one called "Discussion Tools" -> Save. This includes more than just the reply tool from what I've been told but you don't have to use the other features. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_pages_project#Opting_in — xaosflux ^Talk 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T301427

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T302296

It used to work on my user talk page. Now it doesn't. Did I mess something up? The [reply] buttons are there but clicking them does nothing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not just you. I'm having the same issue on your talk page (possibly just your talk page specifically since I'm using the reply tool to reply to you here). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Works for me — xaosflux ^Talk 00:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The reply tool currently fails on pages that contain video or audio embeds (such as your talk page in this section) if you have the "New video player" beta feature enabled. This is a known issue and it should be fixed soon: T301427. Matma Rex talk 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks Matma Rex! And thanks to Blaze Wolf and Xaosflux as well. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: thanks for the note, FYI: It also fails for me if trying to reply to that section, even without that beta player. And once it fails, it fails for the rest of the page until a reload. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

phab:T302296 opened for the non-beta version of this failing. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool configuration

Hello, it would be very useful if we were able to change some parts of the reply tool such as the pinging function. For example, I find it useful to have a dropdown, however I prefer using {{re}} instead of @[[User:<user>]]. Additionally, would it be possible to add a preload to the reply tool like Enterprisey's reply tool? Thank you! ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Where would you want this "preload" to come from? Also note: the "reply function" doesn't work at all in "source" mode, which could be nice. These do seem more like "feature requests" though, so shouldn't block roll outs. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, if you get this ping, then the "Mention a user" button and keyboard shortcut works in source mode. (Do you have the toolbar turned off?) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) - ahh ok, I had to also opt-in to Enable editing tools in source mode in preferences; thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sportzpikachu the @USER<user> option is much more sustainable, local templates can come and go. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Toggle having a signature in reply tool

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T279578

As of now, the reply tool automatically adds a signature to posts, but this can cause issues when using subst templates that add a signature already. An example is Template:RMassist. Maybe there could be a way to toggle it on and off? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this is similar to the one below, personally I think the best solution is to "not autosign" if signature code is present in the text already. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

see phab:T268558 (my last comment following the merge) for what I think is the bigger issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Another approach would be to standardize the templates on never auto-signing. Then editors wouldn't have to look up which template has which behavior each time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we make a blacklist of autosign templates, per project, that sounds computationally expensive. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Partial signatures

Hello,

I occasionally use three-tilde signatures (name-only), when the full signature would be either duplicative or obtrusive for the usecase.

However, it seems that if you do a three tilde signature, the reply tool will still try to add the full signature. I'll demonstrate below this. It would be best if the auto-sign disabled if any form of signature generated by tildes was used. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate signature example Nosebagbear (talk) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

see phab:T268558 (my last comment following the merge) for what I think is the bigger issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

To do this, the tool would have to be able to reliably differentiate between adding a link to your username for some other reason ("Just go to WhatamIdoing and scroll down about halfway to read about that and which") and a partial signature, which is difficult. When you don't want a quick, simple, standard, pre-indented auto-signing tool, then just use the [edit source] button instead of the [reply] button. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) wouldn't something like "if the input text has the ~~~, ~~~~, or ~~~~~ magic words in it, don't autosign"? The tool seems to be fine knowing if these are present, as the live preview output shows them. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That would work, as would a simple checkbox saying "don't auto-sign this comment". If you want to create a link to your userpage, just write [[user:Thryduulf|]], yes it's a few keystrokes more, but it doesn't confuse software. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps some "suppress autosign" button would be more than enough? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer the magic word detection/removal, as well as a suppress autosign, given the choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been about a year since I asked about this, but I believe that the explanation for why that isn't as simple or reliable as it seems like it should be involved the words "pre-save transformation". It might be possible, but it might not be proportionate effort for the small benefit. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A "DO NOT Auto sign" button (perhaps in Advanced) shouldn't have that problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

True. On the other hand, at what point does cramming in all the features we want tip this away from "simple, lightweight tool for quick replies (use the [edit] button if you want to do something complicated)" into a tool that can do anything but which is no longer simple, lightweight, or quick? There's always room for me to put one more cow on the commons, but if we all do that... Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure the good balancing point, personally think I'd rather have "sig is already there, don't add it" then more UI elements to turn it off. As far as the tipping point- we are about to put (on some pages) hundreds or more links to this tool on pages. Putting the sig in "for you" is already new functionality being added (vs just clicking edit), so looking at the sig specific components seems worthwhile. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

hi @Nosebagbear – are you able to share a link to a comment where a ... full signature would be either duplicative or obtrusive for the usecase. ?

...I ask the above in an effort to form a clearer image in my mind for the kind of scenario that, I assume, prompted you to raise this issue here and @Thryduulf to raise a similar issue in phab:T278357... PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't recall any specific situations off the top of my head, my experience over the years is that they are rare but they do exist. Searching project space for sign with three tildes finds mainly lists of participants in WikiProjects/attendees at meetups/events and similar.

Wikipedia:Third opinion/Instructions explicitly instructs to use five tildes, WP:TALK#REVISE notes "Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g., ; edited ~~~~~, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.", although in practice most editors who note a correction/amendment to their comment do so with four tildes.

As I noted in phab:T278357 though by far the most common uses of three and five tildes are typos for four (as at Special:Diff/1072386554). The cases when tildes other than four are intentionally desired are rare enough that needing to explicitly request the software not auto-add your signature (which will be of benefit in other scenarios too) is no burden. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

ps: I just now recall that, several years ago, there was some reason (possibly humour) why I wanted my signature to display as something other than "Thryduulf" and so typed [[user:Thryduulf|foo]] ~~~~~. An even hazier recollection is of wanting something (no idea what) to display between by username and signature, resulting in ~~~ foo ~~~~~. If there have been five instances of my doing this since I got here in December 2004 I would be surprised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer-me has been dubious about the advice in WP:TALK#REVISE, which is rarely followed and sometimes annoying. But even if you wanted to follow it, you can't make that kind of edit in the [reply] tool anyway. Ditto for adding your username to a list of participants/attendees.

Five tildes are sometimes wanted for starting RFCs (to have an RFC question without the posting individual's name), but that usually involves starting a ==New section==, which you can't do with the [reply] button. Five tildes are also used in MassMessage, which again doesn't involve the [reply] button. Usually, if someone adds a comment to an existing section with five tildes, it's a typo. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf the links you shared above were precisely the examples I was seeking...thank you for locating them and sharing them here.

Combining the limited experience/knowledge I have of Wikipedia:Third_opinion/Instructions with the context @Whatamidoing (WMF) shared about Wikipedia:TALK#REVISE is leading me to think these are workflows you, and others, do NOT encounter frequently.

As such, I do not think we should consider adding support for partial signatures within the Reply Tool to warrant blocking the opt-out deployment scheduled for 7 March.

On the topic of signature typos, I imagine those will be most common amongst experienced volunteers who I assume will be confident using the source editor to make corrections of this sort.

Please let me know if anything in what I shared above prompts new thoughts/questions. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF) While I think dealing with phab:T278357 before the opt-out deployment would be desirable I can't in good faith describe it as essential (I would rank phab:T278355 the same way). The phab tickets don't give me any sense of how much effort would be required to fix them, though. A button or checkbox or something to disable auto-signing for a given post is something that can, imo, wait 1 or 2 releases but shouldn't be something we're still waiting for three or four years from now. Thryduulf (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Having now read phab:T302550 (where I have also commented) I think you've misunderstood the intent of phab:T278357 - it is not about intentional uses of three and five tildes but graceful handling of unintentional ones, which are very significantly more common (they are almost impossible to search for, but I encounter them probably 1-2 times a month on average and I read only a tiny fraction of the discussions) Thryduulf (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the tool displays a note if you type ~~~~. Do you want it to display a note for ~~~ and ~~~~~ as well (e.g., "You probably have a typo there. Did you really mean to add a partial signature?")? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The note is more annoying than useful in visual mode tbh. Adding one wouldn't harm, but just silently fixing it would much better. Note that it doesn't display a note in source mode at all - the only change is that the signature in the preview area changes from grey to black. In source mode (which is what I almost always use) three and five tildes do display the output you'll get, but I don't always look at that - if I'm not doing anything complicated with markup I have no need to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T250295

This will probably get a response of "that's a feature, not a bug", but something I've noticed is that the tool resolves edit conflicts. That's great with high-traffic noticeboards and when the reply that causes the edit conflict is not germane to your conversation, but what's happened with me is that a user makes a comment, I start replying to it, and during that time they alter it or add a supplementary comment, rendering my reply moot. Is there a way of showing the latest revision of the page when edits have happened inbetween the time you loaded it and the time you're about to publish? Example: message, supplement, my reply, not knowing it was moot, response alerting me to the change. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is being worked on at T250295. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I particularly hope people will count the (raw) number of times that this happens to them, and that knowing about other replies would have resulted in a significant change to their comment. I'd love to be able to say with some confidence that this happens to highly active editors "once a week" or "once a month" or whatever. Right now, I can only say that some people have encountered it and mentioned it to me once (ever), and that I personally encounter this problem about once a month (out of hundreds of comments posted each month). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, I think the talk pages project has done a great deal of good, especially for our newer editors (I can't count the number of times I've seen errors with indenting and lack of signatures). Resolution of edit conflicts in this manner isn't ideal, but it's still better than not resolving them at all. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, but while the phab task would be the ideal solution, if it can detect something at all, then perhaps adding {{ec}} at the front (even when the edit conflict isn't ultimately relevant) would be a huge (further) mitigation. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is would be nice if it handles this like CD does, i.e. notifying the user if the page has changed while they were typing, and allowing them to reload the page. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

On a busy page like ANI, I don't think I'd appreciate being notified every time the whole page changed. At most, I think I'd like to be notified if new comments were added in the same section (preferably just to the same comment that I was replying to). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a very obtrusive notification:

The notification is the +1 on the left.

 ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with regard to (sub)-section - I hadn't thought that awareness of changes to the full page was even being considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it would be easier to detect whole-page changes, but the devs are looking at better solutions.

WP:ANI averages one edit every 7 minutes, which is a lot of opportunity for whole-page notifications, especially if it takes you more than a couple of minutes to read what's already been written in that section. I'd probably have a 50% chance of seeing that notification before I even started typing a comment. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Review of Outstanding Reply Tool Issues

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T302550

Hi y'all – two things:

1. Thank you @Blaze Wolf, @Nick Moyes, @Nosebagbear, @Sdrqaz, @Qwerfjkl,@Thryduulf, @Usedtobecool, @Xaosflux, and @Zxcvbnm for coming here to report the issues you've noticed in the Reply Tool.
2. Earlier today the Editing Team completed a review of, what we understand to be, the main issues you, and other volunteers at en.wiki, have experienced with the Reply Tool. We did this review to determine which – if any – of these issue we think ought to block the Reply Tool deployment scheduled for 7 March. I've posted the results of this review at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If the results we came to prompt any questions, please let me know.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm attempting to view it but the page keeps loading in a very basic text version. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

See phab:T302550 perhaps. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Same thing. All of phab is loading in a basic text version. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you are blocking javascript. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Preload

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T269310

@PPelberg (WMF) and Whatamidoing (WMF): Once deployed I'd like to see if we can get our edit request forms to start using this. Open eg [2] in incognito, the "Submit an edit request" link going via the Reply Tool (for new sections) would be neat. Any idea if this is technically possible, and if so what the best technical implementation may be? (we often have issues with people messing up the {{subst:trim}} part for example, so I wonder if we could give instructions in an 'editnotice' or have it prefill the {{edit extended-protected}} template 'behind the scenes' for example). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader We experimented with this in T269310. It is technically possible (and you can even find old demos on that task – please beware, it's an outdated version of the tool), but we found that many existing forms with preload either use complicated templates that don't work well in our visual mode, or they don't expect a signature to be added. It can be done, but at the time, it did not seem like the best place to put our effort.

That said… in my personal opinion, with my Wikipedian hat on: I don't think the problem with the edit request form is that it uses an old interface. The problem is that it has so many edit notices, you literally can't see the space where you're supposed to write when you open the page (see screenshot on the side, for posterity). Swapping the edit field for the shiny new tool would not improve anyone's experience if it would have all the same redundant boxes at the top. Matma Rex talk 00:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've open a discussion at Template_talk:Edit_semi-protected#Way_to_long - that should be wider. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe what we really need is a purpose-built method of requesting an edit. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

One step ahead of you :) phab:T300454 Enterprisey (talk!) 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Template

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T230683

So as you can see I'm using the tool here, right? Now, let's say I want to have the citation needed template. {{Citation needed}} ... but it's nowiki-ed. There's a disclaimer saying "You are using the visual editor - wikitext does not work here. To switch to source editing at any time without losing your changes, click on the switch button." Problem is, when I switch to the source... say there's a template with several parameters. What are the short names for those parameters? It'll be a hassle for me to google the template documentation and switch back and forth. The current visualeditor, when I type the template code, it automatically leads me to a box with all the parameters. I'd suggest having that feature. GeraldWL 14:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Gerald Waldo Luis. This is blocked on an expansion of MediaWiki's wikitext code. Basically, to make templates "safe" (also tables and some other things), you'd have to wrap the whole comment in a new wikitext code. This could easily be done automatically by DiscussionTools, but it would look different in the diffs. It would also solve several other problems (see https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?oldid=4731762#Motivation, especially the broken list in the middle of the table). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply link in Archives

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T249293

Currently reply links show up in archived discussion pages too, where they won't be of any use. Archive page templates like {{aan}} use the magicword __NOEDITSECTION__ to suppress section edit links. It would be nice if reply links can be suppressed this way as well. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ this is being worked on in phab:T249293, feel free to contribute there. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ are you able to share a link to the archived discussion page(s) where you noticed reply links appearing where they shouldn't be?

Reason being: I'd like to add links to these pages to the ticket that @Xaosflux mentioned above (T249293). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF) you can see an example at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project/Archive 1 — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful – thank you, @Xaosflux. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Related: is it possible to suppress reply links in pages that are not intended for active discussions? For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and similar pages where the content is bot-copied from the real discussion pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64 not currently, if the solution is a magicword, then that could be applied on any page. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat related: I noticed the reply links show up when viewing past revisions of a talk page and when reviewing talk page diffs. What happens if someone uses it on an old revision or below an old diff? I suppose it's fine unless there are any sort of undesirable consequences, in which case I would recommend suppressing them there as well. DB1729 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If the comment you're replying to is still on the page, it will automatically resolve the ensuing "edit conflict". If it's not (e.g., due to archiving), you'll get an error message. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's cool, but on further thought, when viewing an old version of any page, the edit source links for sections disappear. There have been a handful of occasions when viewing an old diff, I would notice something that needs correcting and look for the edit link for the section. Seeing it not there, I would realize I nearly edited an old version and back out. It might be worth considering to similarly disable the reply links to offer that same clue. Just a suggestion. DB1729 (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@DB1729 @Redrose64 There is a nice improvement to the reply tool's behavior on old revisions coming this week (powered by the same code that provides the edit conflict warning I promised here): when you start replying on an old revision, and there are new comments in the same section in future revisions, you'll get a warning about it and a prompt to display them. I hope that will resolve this concern. Matma Rex talk 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Page width squeezes when using Tool to create new post

Whenever I create a new post by using this Tool, the page width temporarily changes or squeezes. When I refresh the page, the width goes back to normal. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What skin are you using? Are you using the normal webui? What is your screen resolution width? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

New Vector (2022) on desktop; 1366 x 768 landscape. I bet using this tool to reply can also result the same... unless I stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This happens to me as well, and also affects CD (also Evil Vector). ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl, are you also using "New Vector"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The issue started when New Vector became a separate skin. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you try legacy vector, just want to see if 'new vector' is the only differentiator. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Confirmed, only affects New Vector. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hope the issue doesn't occur in other skins besides New Vector. (this is a test post, actually, while using Monobook.) George Ho (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Would one of you mind checking this on another wiki, e.g., French Wikipedia, which has had Vector 2022 turned by default for months? Nobody there has reported this problem. I wonder if there's something specific about this wiki's set up that causes this, rather than a problem affecting everyone. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem seems to have disappeared for now. I'll notify you if it reoccurs. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho, @Qwerfjkl, if it comes back, please re-test in mw:safemode. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): The page width squeeze extends to Wikimedia Commons just on New Vector. I'm using safemode as you suggested for this reply. If the width squeezes here also, then this would be a problem. George Ho (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As I thought, the width squeeze still persists, even on safemode. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the problem. Can you upload screenshots demonstrating it? Matma Rex talk 13:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Here they are: File:Width squeeze A Reply Tool New Vector.png and File:Width squeeze B Reply Tool New Vector.png. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho Thank you. This, however, leaves me very confused, because your screenshots look like neither the new Vector nor the old Vector. Here's what I see when using these skins: old Vector new Vector. Your screenshots have the pure white background like new Vector, but they also have the light-blue lines like old Vector. I'm wondering if you're using something to change how Wikipedia looks that could be conflicting with the reply tool somehow. Matma Rex talk 23:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was using the bottom of the page. I'll provide more screenshots using the top of the page right away. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's another screenshot for clarity: File:Width squeeze top of page New Vector 2022.png. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho Thanks. Can you clarify if this happens only after posting your reply, or after simply opening the reply tool?

If it's only after posting, I might have some ideas for what could be happening (it looks kind of like we're loading the new page content using the wrong skin and creating an weird hybrid), although no idea yet why it's happening. Matma Rex talk 02:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

After posting either a reply or a new thread. Doesn't squeeze after simply opening the tool. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

When this happened to me, it looked exactly like the third screenshot, with the tabs at the top mangled. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)