Task description update
@Ryasmeen: I've added links to talk pages that should be used for testing to the "Phase 1 wikis" section of the task description (see the "Test page" column within the table).

First update on first four target wikis:

Chinese:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Czech:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, the following two instances where Reply link is missing on the test page given.

Serbian:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, the following one instance where Reply link is missing on the test page given.

Georgian:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Sorani Kurdish:

Step 1: Passed, I think. Can't translate the language using Google translate. Screenshot:

Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Failed, does not let posting any test comments.
Step 3: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given, could not check dirty diffs since no comments can be posted.
Screenshot:

Last update:

Swedish:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed. Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Catalan:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed. Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, one instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though.

Korean:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed.Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given. Placement of Reply links are okay for those that are present. Reply tool does not even load for that test page, shows the following error message:

Realized that the last issue on Korean wiki is probably related to T260294? Can check again once that one is fixed.

Thank you for posting these results, @Ryasmeen.

Below is the following:

• What I understand to be the potential issues that surfaced in the testing you did
• Comments/questions in response to said "potential issues."

Once we've come to a shared understanding of the issues, we can reflect the test results in the task description and if needed, file new tasks for the resulting issues.

Potential issues

zh.wiki

• #1: Source mode shown by default
  • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

cs.wiki

• #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
  • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}
• #2 Reply link missing here: F32086313
  • @Ryasmeen, this seems expected to me considering this comment's "signature" does not contain a link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions. See: #No_link_to_the_user_page.

sr.wiki

• #1 Reply link missing here: F32086286
  • @Ryasmeen, this seems expected to me considering this comment's "signature" does not contain a link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions. It's also a newsletter that hasn't been posted by an individual which may contribute to this. See: #No_link_to_the_user_page.

ka.wiki

• #1: Source mode shown by default
  • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

ckb.wiki

• #1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.
  • @Ryasmeen can you share a link to the page where you were testing this?
• #2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.
  • @Ryasmeen can you share a screenshot showing [ reply ] links NOT appearing? //[ reply ] links seem to be appearing as I would expect them to on https://w.wiki/ZKr; see:
    

sv.wiki

• #1: Source mode shown by default
  • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

ca.wiki

• #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
  • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

ko.wiki

• #1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given
  • @Ryasmeen can you share a screenshot showing [ reply ] links NOT appearing? //[ reply ] links seem to be appearing as I would expect them to on https://w.wiki/ZKt; see:
    

In T259769#6381636, @ppelberg wrote:

cs.wiki

• #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
  • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}

Yes, that's the reason, I think this is the expected behavior.

ca.wiki

• #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
  • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

Yeah, I think our tool is behaving as expected here. The original edit indeed adds two signatures, I have no idea if the user meant to do that.

It looks like they used a pre-filled new form to make that edit: on https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada?action=edit, if you click the "Sol·licita una modificació" link ("Request edit"), you end up on the "Add topic" page with some prefilled content that includes a signature at the end. It's probably an easy mistake to make to add another signature, as one always does.

In T259769#6384446, @matmarex wrote:

In T259769#6381636, @ppelberg wrote:

cs.wiki

• #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
  • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}

Yes, that's the reason, I think this is the expected behavior.

Understood, ok.

ca.wiki

• #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
  • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

Yeah, I think our tool is behaving as expected here. The original edit indeed adds two signatures, I have no idea if the user meant to do that.

It looks like they used a pre-filled new form to make that edit: on https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada?action=edit, if you click the "Sol·licita una modificació" link ("Request edit"), you end up on the "Add topic" page with some prefilled content that includes a signature at the end. It's probably an easy mistake to make to add another signature, as one always does.

I see. This makes sense.

Thank you for looking into these, Bartosz.

Outstanding issues

Below are, what I understand to be, the potential remaining outstanding issues. These issues have been added to the task description so we can keep track of them

zh.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

• When using the Reply Tool for the first time while logged in at zh.wiki, like Rummana [i], I am seeing the source mode by default. This seems unexpected considering the following:
  • zh.wiki seems to be a SET wiki (I'm seeing one "Edit" tab)
  • zh.wiki does NOT appear in this list in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php:

 'wmgVisualEditorIsSecondaryEditor' => [
	'default' => false,
	'enwiki' => true, // T132806
	'eswiki' => true, // T62188
	'frwiktionary' => true, // T169741
	'hewiki' => true, // T54552

• @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

ka.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

I have not been able to reproduce the above.[i]

ckb.wiki

#1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.

• @matmarex can you confirm the complex transclusions [ii] present on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) [iii] explains why comments cannot be posted to?

#2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.

• @matmarex, can you confirm many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

sv.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

I have not been able to reproduce this. [i]

ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

• @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

i. Note: I saw the visual mode when opening the Reply Tool for the first time at ka.wiki and sv.wiki
ii. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#Accidental_complex_transclusion
iii. Evidence of complex transclusions at ckb.wiki test page; note the multiple "Content" transclusions

In T259769#6384656, @ppelberg wrote:

zh.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

• When using the Reply Tool for the first time while logged in at zh.wiki, like Rummana [i], I am seeing the source mode by default. This seems unexpected considering the following:
  • zh.wiki seems to be a SET wiki (I'm seeing one "Edit" tab)
  • zh.wiki does NOT appear in this list in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php:

 'wmgVisualEditorIsSecondaryEditor' => [
	'default' => false,
	'enwiki' => true, // T132806
	'eswiki' => true, // T62188
	'frwiktionary' => true, // T169741
	'hewiki' => true, // T54552

• @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

I think this is the expected behavior. The article editor opens in wikitext mode at first, therefore the reply tool also opens in wikitext mode. In T250523 we've decided that is what we want.

(And the article editor opens in wikitext mode, because the visual editor is still a beta feature on zhwiki, because it's in this list: https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=dblists/visualeditor-nondefault.dblist)

ckb.wiki

#1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.

• @matmarex can you confirm the complex transclusions [ii] present on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) [iii] explains why comments cannot be posted to?

#2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.

• @matmarex, can you confirm many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again.

#2: Yes, the "Tech News" sections don't have complete signatures (only timestamps) and so they should not be treated as comments. The sections with real comments have reply links as expected, e.g. "بەکارهێنانی Databox بۆ درووستکردنی Infobox ـەکان"

ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

• @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

Yes.

In T259769#6398151, @matmarex wrote:

In T259769#6384656, @ppelberg wrote:

• @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

I think this is the expected behavior. The article editor opens in wikitext mode at first, therefore the reply tool also opens in wikitext mode. In T250523 we've decided that is what we want.

(And the article editor opens in wikitext mode, because the visual editor is still a beta feature on zhwiki, because it's in this list: https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=dblists/visualeditor-nondefault.dblist)

Understood. As discussed during yesterday's team meeting, we need to develop an approach for what "default logic" should apply on projects where VE is a Beta Feature. This thinking and work will happen in: T261422.

In T259769#6398151, @matmarex wrote:

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again

Understood. I just tried again and noticed: the Reply Tool opens in this section (https://w.wiki/aWx), but not this one (https://w.wiki/aXH).

• @matmarex: could the Reply Tool not opening in the latter section be explained by the comments in that section (https://w.wiki/aXH) being wrapped in tags like </span><span lang="en" dir="ltr"> or perhaps the entire section being placed inside this template: {{Ltr/end}}?

#2: Yes, the "Tech News" sections don't have complete signatures (only timestamps) and so they should not be treated as comments. The sections with real comments have reply links as expected, e.g. "بەکارهێنانی Databox بۆ درووستکردنی Infobox ـەکان"

ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

• @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

Yes.

Understood. As discussed during yesterday's meeting, Reply Links could be made to appear on these tech news announcement if any of the following happened:

• Modify the comment parser's definition of a signature
• Introduce new wikitext that would signal to the comment parser that [ reply ] links should appear where they wouldn't otherwise
• Modify the tech news output to include a link to a user page, talk page or contributions page, per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#No_link_to_the_user_page

Note: we do not have plans to do the above

In T259769#6417320, @ppelberg wrote:

In T259769#6398151, @matmarex wrote:

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again

Understood. I just tried again and noticed: the Reply Tool opens in this section (https://w.wiki/aWx), but not this one (https://w.wiki/aXH).

• @matmarex: could the Reply Tool not opening in the latter section be explained by the comments in that section (https://w.wiki/aXH) being wrapped in tags like </span><span lang="en" dir="ltr"> or perhaps the entire section being placed inside this template: {{Ltr/end}}?

Oh, I haven't noticed that before.

Yes, this is caused by the templates {{Ltr}} and {{Ltr/end}} that are wrapping that section. (The HTML markup like <span lang="en" dir="ltr">…</span> alone wouldn't cause the issue.)

We can't edit content affected by templates, this falls under the case I described here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#Wrapper_templates