Page MenuHomePhabricator

Add support for voting-style discussions
Open, Needs TriagePublic


This is a parent task for the work involved with creating a new tool/abstraction for supporting voting-style discussions on wikitext talk pages.

The work involved to implement the above could include:

  • Extending the Reply Tool
  • Introducing new wikitext so the software can know/detect when and where a vote is taking place

Use cases

The below is a living list of use cases for the voting tool this task is "asking" for.


@Esanders to describe.


  • In deletion discussions at, comments are expected within votes.

Open questions

  • Is an approach that could cause the [Add comment] affordance (exact naming TBD) to appear in conversations/sections where it should not acceptable? More context about this false positive case can be found in the comment Ed wrote in T259865#6655698.


Event Timeline

Surprisingly, voting didn't come up very high in the TPC. I think it's only covered under "Workflows":

Opinion may change as this tool becomes more widely used though.

ppelberg renamed this task from Create voting tool to Add support for voting-style discussions.Oct 14 2020, 11:57 PM
ppelberg updated the task description. (Show Details)

Updating the task description with some examples Michel Ney shared on here:

ppelberg added a subscriber: Barkeep49.

Task description update
Adding RfC's as a potential use case via @Barkeep49

I’m wondering if we could special case any discussion that starts with an indented comment, and in those cases add a new affordance to comment at the same level:

* support. (sig)


  • support. (sig) [ reply ]
  • [ add comment ]

This would require a heading (or sub heading) to immediately precede the first vote, but this is already quite a common convention and it would not be that disruptive to require it going forward. If a vote introduction is required, users would just need to ensure there was an additional sub-heading before the voting started. It would also solve the problem of the vote introduction being considered part of the first comment:

I’m not part of the first comment.
* But that’s impossible to tell programmatically. (sig)

This does not address the issue of whether votes can be replied to, which is usually determined on a case by case basis. For that we would definitely need some extra syntax:

* support. (sig)


  • support. (sig)
  • [ add comment ]

The above proposal would allow the tool to work in a large number of cases without any new syntax. Many other cases could also work using minimal existing syntax (extra sub-heading).

False positives would just result in an inoffensive [ add comment ] button that adds a comment at the same (indented) level as the OP.

The issue of unwanted [ reply ] buttons is separated from the new vote functionality and can be decided on a case by case basis. It is also not a technical blocker to the new vote functionality, which is good because adding new syntax is not trivial.

Task description update

  • ADDED === Open questions
  • ADDED === Approaches for @Esanders to fill in with what is described in T259865#6655698 and discussed during today's standup wherein the following idea was shared: "What about adding an additional check for where * or # (read: not :) is used as the indentation syntax for first "comment."

Is this vote easy enough to figure out?

* I’ve got a lot of stuff to say.
: But I don't know how to create a valid list structure and still get the visual appearance I want.
: Will you be able to figure out how much of this is my vote?  (sig)

The comments people are posting at [i] about the potential of reinstating the {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} templates will likely be helpful to consider when deciding on an initial approach for adding voting-style discussion support to DiscussionTools.

Thank you to @Whatamidoing-WMF for noticing this and bringing it to our attention; I've added the link below to the task description.


Is this vote easy enough to figure out?

With all comments we include everything up to the previous signature, so that should be parsed correctly. The proposal here is just to add another call-to-action to make voting-like interactions easier, parsing existing votes is an unrelated issue.

Do you expect that some discussions are partly voting and partly classic? See this.

@ppelberg Hello, please see Meta – Stewards Elections. There is a good voting style I think. What do you think about it?