FANDOM


  • MisterWoodhouse
    MisterWoodhouse closed this thread because:
    New thread time
    17:59, June 19, 2020

    IT BE FRIDAY, SAILORS! HOORAY!

    I'm back from vacation and, while we only had one release this week, it was an important one, so let's get right to it...

    Article Comments

    They are live on the UCP!

    Cool enhancement we've got this time around: Article Comments and Talk Pages coexist! No more either one or the other. We'll leave it up to your communities to decide how to use this additional functionality.

    Anonymous commenting is allowed, but their permissions are limited, to cut down on spam and abuse. Anon users cannot report comments. Anon users cannot add images to their comments.

    Message Wall 2.0 moderation enhancements Round 1

    You can now lock and edit posts on Message Wall 2.0

    More enhancements to come!

    No more Wiki Wiki and Wikia Wiki names

    When creating a new wiki, using the word wiki or wikia is now forbidden. We already append your wiki name with wiki, so we don't need The Greybeard Collective Wiki Wiki or The Mossfan Wikia Wiki popping up.

    http to https

    The legacy functionality which would redirect you to the correct https URL if you accidentally had http instead has been restored.

    ---

    Upcoming Soon

    - Custom JavaScript Review: Currently tackling some final bugs with this

    - Message Wall 2.0 moderation enhancements Round 2

    - Discussions enhancements Round 1: The condensed view of the Discussions board vs the default card view will be making its debut soon.

      Loading editor
    • A nice batch of fixes.

        Loading editor
    • Bug: After disabling/enabling comments to test I can't get comments to show up beneath article pages. The "Comments (X)" button to the right of the edit button shows up, but the comments never load. The console reports the following error:

      Error: "Unknown module: ext.fandom.ArticleComments.runtime"
          sortDependencies https://<wiki>.fandom.com/load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=oasis:8
          resolve          https://<wiki>.fandom.com/load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=oasis:9
      

      EDIT: Upon a hard refresh it's working again, probably just that comments hadn't properly loaded yet.

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote: Bug: After disabling/enabling comments to test I can't get comments to show up beneath article pages. The "Comments (X)" button to the right of the edit button shows up, but the comments never load. The console reports the following error:

      Error: "Unknown module: ext.fandom.ArticleComments.runtime"
          sortDependencies https://<wiki>.fandom.com/load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=oasis:8
          resolve          https://<wiki>.fandom.com/load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=oasis:9
      

      EDIT: Upon a hard refresh it's working again, probably just that comments hadn't properly loaded yet.

      When in doubt, dump the cache.

        Loading editor
    • I absolutely love how the new Article Comment flow looks. I also very much appreciate forbidding anonymous users from adding images. And thanks for fixing that HTTP->HTTPS redirect! Looking forward to JavaScript and the Discussions enhancement :)

        Loading editor
    • Article Comments and Talk Pages coexist! No more either one or the other. We'll leave it up to your communities to decide how to use this additional functionality.

      Nice to still have both options! I personally like to use talk pages to discuss the ways of improving articles with other contributors and comments for... well, comments on the related topic.

      I don't know if that's just me, but I had to look a few seconds to find the form for writing a new comment. I think it would be better to put it below the "X comments/No Comments Yet" heading. Could also help to use borders/<hr>, a bit more margin-top and increased text-size for the heading.

      Also, @mentions don't work. I wonder whether this was intended like on Message Walls.

        Loading editor
    • Professor Hershel Theodore Layton wrote:

      Article Comments and Talk Pages coexist! No more either one or the other. We'll leave it up to your communities to decide how to use this additional functionality.

      Nice to still have both options! I personally like to use talk pages to discuss the ways of improving articles with other contributors and comments for... well, comments on the related topic.

      I don't know if that's just me, but I had to look a few seconds to find the form for writing a new comment. I think it would be better to put it below the "X comments/No Comments Yet" heading. Could also help to use borders/<hr>, a bit more margin-top and increased text-size for the heading.

      Also, @mentions don't work. I wonder whether this was intended like on Message Walls.

      Talk pages give you more options for discussing editing, formatting, etc.

      Article Comments give users easy to engage and mobile friendly format for discussing the content.

      Yeah, mentions won't be working just yet.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Yeah, mentions won't be working just yet.

      Implies that they will eventually work. Will anonymous users be able to ping people?

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote:

      Will anonymous users be able to ping people?

      I surely hope not.

        Loading editor
    • I hope anonymous users won't be able to add comments in UCP. Anon comments are a scourge.

        Loading editor
    • Does it extend the list of wikis that can volunteer to be moved over sooner?

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:
      IT BE FRIDAY, SAILORS! HOORAY!

      I'm back from vacation and, while we only had one release this week, it was an important one, so let's get right to it...

      Article Comments

      They are live on the UCP!

      Cool enhancement we've got this time around: Article Comments and Talk Pages coexist! No more either one or the other. We'll leave it up to your communities to decide how to use this additional functionality.

      Anonymous commenting is allowed, but their permissions are limited, to cut down on spam and abuse. Anon users cannot report comments. Anon users cannot add images to their comments.

      Message Wall 2.0 moderation enhancements Round 1

      You can now lock and edit posts on Message Wall 2.0

      More enhancements to come!

      No more Wiki Wiki and Wikia Wiki names

      When creating a new wiki, using the word wiki or wikia is now forbidden. We already append your wiki name with wiki, so we don't need The Greybeard Collective Wiki Wiki or The Mossfan Wikia Wiki popping up.

      http to https

      The legacy functionality which would redirect you to the correct https URL if you accidentally had http instead has been restored.

      ---

      Upcoming Soon

      - Custom JavaScript Review: Currently tackling some final bugs with this

      - Message Wall 2.0 moderation enhancements Round 2

      - Discussions enhancements Round 1: The condensed view of the Discussions board vs the default card view will be making its debut soon.

      Darn it! I was gonna create the Ninjago Wiki Wiki. I wanted to make a wiki about a wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      I hope anonymous users won't be able to add comments in UCP. Anon comments are a scourge.

      Requiring all contributors to log in is still available from the Admin dashboard.

        Loading editor
    • Killer kev wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:
      I hope anonymous users won't be able to add comments in UCP. Anon comments are a scourge.

      Requiring all contributors to log in is still available from the Admin dashboard.

      This may or may not apply to the new Comments, since Discussions so far never allowed anon posts/replies, regardless of the WikiFeatures setting.

        Loading editor
    • It applies to the new comments as well. I just checked. So I guess it's up to the admin's discretion.

        Loading editor
    • Just tested, anonymous users on wikis with the "Require all contributors to log in" option on can't comment, though the ui for commenting still appears like they can. When trying to post a comment they get the generic error "Something went wrong. Please try again later."

      Definitely think it shouldn't load at all for anons when the wiki requires contributors log in to prevent confusion

        Loading editor
    • I thought that was odd as well, and it will surely cause confusion. The message makes it seem more like an error, rather than the ability to comment anonymously actually being disabled.

        Loading editor
    • Good job, happy Friday!

        Loading editor
    • Oh quick question, how do you filter "recent changes" for comments only?

        Loading editor
    • Since they're based on Discussions comments won't show up in S:RC, you'll need to wait for one of the Discussions activity scripts become available or Fandom figures out a way to make it show up in S:RC

      Probably why reporting is a thing since admins can't easily follow activity

        Loading editor
    • Another reason for me to miss good old "recent wiki activity" X /

        Loading editor
    • Special:WikiActivity doesn't log Discussions activity either (nor does it let you do any filtering)

        Loading editor
    • I meant a general "good old days" where comments were seen as such.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:
       

      Cool enhancement we've got this time around: Article Comments and Talk Pages coexist! No more either one or the other. We'll leave it up to your communities to decide how to use this additional functionality.

      Interesting. I'm hardly the first to observe that users often don't use article comments for the ostensible purpose of discussing the article itself--that is, users tend to 'comment' their opinions on the article subject rather than discuss accuracy and quality, et cetera.

      While this tendency does irk me, I admit I've not especially enforced the 'true purpose' of article comments on the wikis I administrate that have article comments enabled--why? Well, they're very small wikis with little in the way of editor activity besides my own. Users commenting = wiki engagement, however minimal; they signaled the existence of fans using the wiki more obviously (to casual visitors) than statistics. 

      Not that those comments have led to those users actually contributing to the wikis, most of the time. Alas. I've been thinking of having the newer (all pre-UCP) Wikis I admin go back to wiki-style forums, user Talk Pages, and article Talk Pages, but with this... Well. My first thought was the rather obvious option to enforce Talk Pages for article quality discussions and resign article comments to more casual use, but in practice I suspect user behavior will not change without stringent sysop oversight.

      Is it jumping the gun to ask whether you might consider reversing the decision from a few years back to 'hide' the Talk Page button under the Edit button's drop-down menu? (New users: for context, the Talk Page button used to be adjacent to Edit)--that is, in light of comments and Talk Pages' future coexistence? It seems to me that keeping the Talk Page out of sight while the 'Article Comments' feature will remain immediately visible to users--well, it just won't work in the Talk Page's favor.

      I'll concede that editors are likely going to be aware of the Talk Page regardless of where the link is, and that the Talk Page visibility has little effect on casual users who have no interest in editing, but still--the visibility imbalance is something to consider. I think I've seen some wikis use placeholder text in article comment text boxes to explain what comments are ostensibly for (i.e. meta-discussion of article), so perhaps placeholder text could be used to direct users to Talk Pages, but in practice I'm inclined to think most users ignore placeholder text. 

      Maybe that's where strict comment moderation would have to come in. I'll be interested to see what other admins decide to do. I'm betting wikis that already have article comments disabled will likely prefer to keep it that way; for instance, I doubt I'll enable comments on the oldest wiki I admin. Though, who knows? (Article Comments will still have the option to be disabled, yes? That was the impression I had from the Vision, Purpose, and Process blog post). The question is whether admins of wikis with active article comment sections will--or, will be able to--shift appropriate user activity toward Talk Pages...

        Loading editor
    • RE: Comments vs. Talk Pages

      IMO this is a perfect opportunity to have talk pages for article editing talk of the page. In case- to prevent edit wars or toe stepping for editors/editing community. Where comments are for article feedback, fan girling/boying, reviews, or whatever a community plans to use their comments section for viewers.

      Either way if it suits their wiki vision, "disable comments" might be a better option if they don't want to be a moderator. Or keep if it is a chance to be a gateway to wiki editing or is how you want the wiki to be utilized. Most of the wikis I had- I preferred no comments but my newest wiki pretty much requires it for the vision I hope it can be.

        Loading editor
    • I just checked, with UCP wikis anons can add page comments. You have to restrict all anons apparently to disable anon commenting. Guess I need to turn off anons.

      I also found out "Require all contributors to log in" may look like it is enabled, but isn't really, so you may have to enable it twice (enable, leave, go back enable again).

        Loading editor
    • Isn't the fact that anons can comment on UCP Wikis mentioned in the OP?

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Anonymous commenting is allowed, but their permissions are limited, to cut down on spam and abuse. Anon users cannot report comments. Anon users cannot add images to their comments.

      (emphasis mine)
        Loading editor
    • Looks like comments on UCP aren't tracked anywhere, so if you have them enabled there isn't any way to tell if they've been added, edited, replied to unless you check every page.

        Loading editor
    • I personally recommend add editing functions to article comments and can the loading icon for article comments be displayed before the comment box appears.

        Loading editor
    • Good to know about these updates. However, I'm starting to prefer article talk pages to article comments, mostly due to two reasons:

      A: The fact that people tend to abuse the privilege of article comments, often by leaving spam or gibberish in them.

      B: Coming from an admin's perspective (because I am an admin on a couple of wikis), it can be quite a nuisance to see continuous comment spam in Special:RecentChanges, sometimes to the point where I get stressed out, annoyed, and a headache.

      -Arthur Read fan

        Loading editor
    • Arthur Read fan wrote: Good to know about these updates. However, I'm starting to prefer article talk pages to article comments, mostly due to two reasons:

      A: The fact that people tend to abuse the privilege of article comments, often by leaving spam or gibberish in them.

      B: Coming from an admin's perspective (because I am an admin on a couple of wikis), it can be quite a nuisance to see continuous comment spam in Special:RecentChanges, sometimes to the point where I get stressed out, annoyed, and a headache.

      -Arthur Read fan

      You don't have to have Article Comments. They are optional on the wiki-level.

        Loading editor
    • If/when the achievements are made available, will they be enablable by admins, or would it have to be requested to staff?

        Loading editor
    • TortoiseCat5 wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote: You don't have to have Article Comments. They are optional on the wiki-level.

      so is Special:WikiFeatures returning, and will we be able to disable editing for anon users?

      Also will the achievements be enablable by admins, or would it have to be requested to staff?

      Please see Help:Unified Community Platform.

        Loading editor
    • Special:WikiFeatures were removed, so you can turn on these features in AdminDashboard

      Achievements is a big question, because probably they will be replaced or removed. And if they will be there then... It is inpossible to tell if the achievements will be enablable by admins, or would it have to be requested to staff

        Loading editor
    • TreeIsLife wrote: Special:WikiFeatures were removed, so you can turn on these features in AdminDashboard

      Achievements is a big question, because probably they will be replaced or removed. And if they will be there then... It is inpossible to tell if the achievements will be enablable by admins, or would it have to be requested to staff

      If they will be replaced, I would prefer template medals for editors to get on their userpage if another editor thinks they did something positive. CaillouFan (talk) - I love the TV show Caillou. 15:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • (you mean like badges on Wikipedia)?

        Loading editor
    • So, as far as I can tell, URL query parameters like usesitecss seem to be missing/not working. Are those going to be added/fixed? Or have they changed to something else? I understand the focus on front-and-center issues but this and the current CSS loading is making it difficult to help new users who are coming here asking for help with styling their wikis.

        Loading editor
    • I think usesitejs and etc were custom made by wikia, and default MW comes with safemode=1

        Loading editor
    • I see. Well, that explains it then. Though it would still be useful to have them added.

        Loading editor
    • TreeIsLife wrote: (you mean like badges on Wikipedia)?

      Yes. CaillouFan (talk) - I love the TV show Caillou. 18:35, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • As far as I am aware, Fandom has not recently released any official info on how achievements/medals/ranks will be handled on UCP. In an earlier blog post, they indicated a leaning towards adopting Gamepedia's system or something similar; including the farm-wide aspects which I am wary of. At the time of the blog, it was indicated that a decision had not yet been made about the eventual future of Achievements but that they would be kept (perhaps in an archived state) in the mean time. Of course, this was all a while ago and things may have significantly changed since then.

        Loading editor
    • Any updates on the discussion apps?

        Loading editor
    • Most of the stuff I've seen in UCP so far I didn't really like, but these changes look good.

        Loading editor
    • https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MisterWoodhouse/The_first_migrations_to_the_Unified_Community_Platform#comm-1893681

      Can y'all take a look into this? There's some pretty fundamental bugs with the new editing interface, that I'm unclear how they haven't been caught already.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MisterWoodhouse/The_first_migrations_to_the_Unified_Community_Platform#comm-1893681

      Can y'all take a look into this? There's some pretty fundamental bugs with the new editing interface, that I'm unclear how they haven't been caught already.

      Some of the "bugs" you list are design changes, not bugs. We're using the newest editor from the Wikimedia Foundation, who make the software our wikis run on. Article Comments was rebuilt on different software to eliminate an update conflict.

      We also opted not to port Wiki Activity, going with the core Recent Changes instead. It is an issue which we have received a lot of feedback on and we're analyzing that feedback now.

      The required popup feedback has been heard loud and clear. We're analyzing that feedback now.

        Loading editor
    • Special:Contributions for KrytenKoro on their cthulhuwars wiki loads forever instead of displaying the contributions as they should. I assume it's due to the larger amount of edits they have compared to mine on the wreckit-woodhouse wiki, since the latter loads fine.

      Or maybe it's some weird migration bug? Regardless, Special:Contributions is completely useless at this point in time.


      Edit: Tested a user who only has 55 edits (less then I have on the wreckit-woodhouse wiki) on the cthulhuwars wiki, same issue. So it appears to be a migration bug

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MisterWoodhouse/The_first_migrations_to_the_Unified_Community_Platform#comm-1893681

      Can y'all take a look into this? There's some pretty fundamental bugs with the new editing interface, that I'm unclear how they haven't been caught already.

      Some of the "bugs" you list are design changes, not bugs. We're using the newest editor from the Wikimedia Foundation, who make the software our wikis run on. Article Comments was rebuilt on different software to eliminate an update conflict.

      We also opted not to port Wiki Activity, going with the core Recent Changes instead. It is an issue which we have received a lot of feedback on and we're analyzing that feedback now.

      The required popup feedback has been heard loud and clear. We're analyzing that feedback now.

      I'm not sure why you brought up WikiActivity, that wasn't one of my complaints.

      Only one of the complaints I made was about aesthetics (the article comments thing). The rest of them were all about how these changes, whether intentional or not, significantly bog down editing or obfuscate information and introduce additional, unnecessary steps where things could previously be done in a single step -- which is exponentially worsened by the load times each step takes. I've also just discovered that you guys added two-three steps between the source editor and the "show changes" window (which was also renamed?), which considering the abysmal load times is also bewildering.

      "We're using the newest editor from the Wikimedia Foundation, who make the software our wikis run on."

      -- as far as I can tell, none of the issues that I brought up are present on Wikimedia Commons. The inability for anon users to view file descriptions and licensing (which wasn't in my list of complaints but, isn't that illegal per fair use law?) is also not present on that site. Can you please clarify what wikimedia sites use an editor with the features I'm pointing out?

        Loading editor
    • Loading times and extra steps (including pop ups) are a pet peeve of mine too. I think loading times especially if you are use to old source editor to the new source editor are imo ridiculous if you are a mass or high edit count editor.

      Something that I could do quickly for an article, and I need to do for a dozen or more and cannot be done with mass edit- would take me so much longer between loading, glitches I have so far experienced in the new source editor and the pop ups. This might be fine if you do 1-10 edits a day or week but if you are doing that 10-100 edits in an half hour well it might take you up to double that now.

      Removing js as a pop up editor for source editor imo is the first step to correct this and may even completely rectify it.

        Loading editor
    • Great! I think i have a bit more sanity in Fandom after this.

        Loading editor
    • Nintendon't wrote: Great! I think i have a bit more sanity in Fandom after this.

      I think you'll like some upcoming updates too :)

        Loading editor
    • Regarding the file pages, it seems you have already discovered the separate thread about it. For anyone else that wants to read it, see Thread:1772517. I think it is pretty clear that the change to how file pages work is not at all related to UCP.


      I am not sure if this is what you meant but it sounds as if you are saying that the classic editor's source mode is not JS-based. I was under this impression as well until recently. The truth is that it is JS-based. It is just that it is more robust (for lack of a better term), doesn't try so hard to be "smart", and works with older browsers.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:

      I am not sure if this is what you meant but it sounds as if you are saying that the classic editor's source mode is not JS-based. I was under this impression as well until recently. The truth is that it is JS-based. It is just that it is more robust (for lack of a better term), doesn't try so hard to be "smart", and works with older browsers.

      I'm pretty sure they were referring to the source-only editor and not the source edit mode of the classic/RTE editor.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Andrewds1021 wrote:

      I am not sure if this is what you meant but it sounds as if you are saying that the classic editor's source mode is not JS-based. I was under this impression as well until recently. The truth is that it is JS-based. It is just that it is more robust (for lack of a better term), doesn't try so hard to be "smart", and works with older browsers.

      I'm pretty sure they were referring to the source-only editor and not the source edit mode of the classic/RTE editor.

      ^This.

      I do not use the source edit mode of the classic editor. I use source editor (which I did not know had another term but Fandyllic has clarified here as source-only editor).

        Loading editor
    • I also just noticed on a UCP wiki that the mail icon seems to be missing, meaning I couldn't actually access this chat from that wiki. Is this intentional?

      Hotkeys (e for edit, d for delete, etc.) also appear to have been disabled.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: I also just noticed on a UCP wiki that the mail icon seems to be missing, meaning I couldn't actually access this chat from that wiki. Is this intentional?

      Yes. The Mail dropdown is related to legacy features being replaced on the UCP.

        Loading editor
    • So how am I meant to see replies to my forum posts without going to a pre-UCP wiki?

      Also, can you respond on the hotkeys?

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: So how am I meant to see replies to my forum posts without going to a pre-UCP wiki?

      Also, can you respond on the hotkeys?

      Email notifications are the best option during this intermediate time with the old features still active.

      We're using standard MediaWiki hotkeys, if memory serves, rather than developing our own.

      Also, that Contributions issue you noticed yesterday should be fixed. You helped us quite a bit by reporting it!

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We're using standard MediaWiki hotkeys, if memory serves, rather than developing our own.

      I made a ticket about the hotkeys not working some time ago and beyond the responder saying they'll ask the development team to look into it I haven't heard anything, definitely still an issue.

      Good to hear about the Contributions issue is fixed, was it related to the outage yesterday? Or are you not allowed to tell us? :P

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We're using standard MediaWiki hotkeys, if memory serves, rather than developing our own.

      I made a ticket about the hotkeys not working some time ago and beyond the responder saying they'll ask the development team to look into it I haven't heard anything, definitely still an issue.

      Good to hear about the Contributions issue is fixed, was it related to the outage yesterday? Or are you not allowed to tell us? :P

      We have to triage bugs based on impact and then balance against available dev resources and previously scheduled work.

      The Contributions issue was related to the partial outage, yes. It was actually the cause!

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.