Change Details

⚠️**This is a placeholder task for now.** >>! In T240271#5728573, @ppelberg wrote: >>>! In T240271#5728480, @Esanders wrote: >> These are the default messages for AbandonEdit, which we can override: >> {F31465518} >> >> Note that we will eventually have at least three "modes": >> * Replying >> * New topics >> * Editing replies >> >> So we may want to keep the language fairly generic to support all these. > > Are we able to have the language be more discussion-specific? E.g. something like, //"Are you sure? / Are you sure you want to discard your draft?"// > > **Thinking** > Having the interface contain more discussion-specific language and actions will lead Junior Contributors to understand talk pages as places to communicate with other contributors. > > **Rationale** > In the most recent user test we ran, one contributor, //"...did not edit using the "edit" button, but instead used the "create new section" tab."// This contributor went on to say, //"It was hard to find an actual reply button so the only option was to create a new subject and tag the user or edit his subject with my answer."// > > I wonder if the above could be considered evidence to support this idea that repurposing language and actions from the article-editing is confusing to contributors who are not familiar with talk pages.

This task represents the work involved with making sure the language people encounter on talk pages is discussion-specific, //wherever possible.// An example of "discussion-specific" language would be changing the dialog that is presented to people when they attempt to discard a comment they've started writing in the Reply tool to refer to what they are doing as publishing a //"comment"// vs. saving an //"edit"//. We are saying //"wherever possible"// because there are some instances where the discussion-specific language would be limiting and potentially confusing. An example of the above case: were the abandon edit dialogs that are presented in the full page editing interface to change from "edit" language to more specific "commenting" or "starting a new discussion" language. Reason: we think the language being specific in this context could create a mismatch between the action someone is taking (e.g. correct a typo) and the dialog they are seeing (e.g. "Are you sure you want to discard the comment you drafted?") and thus lead them to become confused. >>! In T240271#5728573, @ppelberg wrote: >>>! In T240271#5728480, @Esanders wrote: >> These are the default messages for AbandonEdit, which we can override: >> {F31465518} >> >> Note that we will eventually have at least three "modes": >> * Replying >> * New topics >> * Editing replies >> >> So we may want to keep the language fairly generic to support all these. > > Are we able to have the language be more discussion-specific? E.g. something like, //"Are you sure? / Are you sure you want to discard your draft?"// > > **Thinking** > Having the interface contain more discussion-specific language and actions will lead Junior Contributors to understand talk pages as places to communicate with other contributors. > > **Rationale** > In the most recent user test we ran, one contributor, //"...did not edit using the "edit" button, but instead used the "create new section" tab."// This contributor went on to say, //"It was hard to find an actual reply button so the only option was to create a new subject and tag the user or edit his subject with my answer."// > > I wonder if the above could be considered evidence to support this idea that repurposing language and actions from the article-editing is confusing to contributors who are not familiar with talk pages.

⚠️**This is a placeholder task for now.** This task represents the work involved with making sure the language people encounter on talk pages is discussion-specific, //wherever possible.// An example of "discussion-specific" language would be changing the dialog that is presented to people when they attempt to discard a comment they've started writing in the Reply tool to refer to what they are doing as publishing a //"comment"// vs. saving an //"edit"//. We are saying //"wherever possible"// because there are some instances where the discussion-specific language would be limiting and potentially confusing. An example of the above case: were the abandon edit dialogs that are presented in the full page editing interface to change from "edit" language to more specific "commenting" or "starting a new discussion" language. Reason: we think the language being specific in this context could create a mismatch between the action someone is taking (e.g. correct a typo) and the dialog they are seeing (e.g. "Are you sure you want to discard the comment you drafted?") and thus lead them to become confused. >>! In T240271#5728573, @ppelberg wrote: >>>! In T240271#5728480, @Esanders wrote: >> These are the default messages for AbandonEdit, which we can override: >> {F31465518} >> >> Note that we will eventually have at least three "modes": >> * Replying >> * New topics >> * Editing replies >> >> So we may want to keep the language fairly generic to support all these. > > Are we able to have the language be more discussion-specific? E.g. something like, //"Are you sure? / Are you sure you want to discard your draft?"// > > **Thinking** > Having the interface contain more discussion-specific language and actions will lead Junior Contributors to understand talk pages as places to communicate with other contributors. > > **Rationale** > In the most recent user test we ran, one contributor, //"...did not edit using the "edit" button, but instead used the "create new section" tab."// This contributor went on to say, //"It was hard to find an actual reply button so the only option was to create a new subject and tag the user or edit his subject with my answer."// > > I wonder if the above could be considered evidence to support this idea that repurposing language and actions from the article-editing is confusing to contributors who are not familiar with talk pages.