Help talk:DiscussionTools

Unlike the others listed, the "Talk pages permalinking" gadget doesn't have a toggle to disable in one's preferences. How do users go about disabling this otherwise? Fourthords (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fourthords

Permalinks are not a gadget but a core feature of talk pages.

We can't make it a preference, sorry. This is due to several technical constraints, mainly on how caching is done to create these permalinks. Besides that, the more you create preferences, the more likely you have potential issues, and many other reasons.

As you probably saw it, you have the possibility of editing your personal skin preferences to change the link's aspect.

Out of curiosity, could you explain why you'd prefer to remove these permalinks from your experience? I'm really curious to know more, as I use them quite often, both as volunteer and staff (the latest example being the one I added just above). I also observe more and more people using them at wikis where they were deployed earlier. I'm genuinely curious!

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did work with other editors at en:WP:VPT to minimize the impact as much as possible, but the cursor malfunction is still frustrating my efforts (which if you can help with, I'd be immensely grateful).

In order of decreasing significance, I'm trying to disable these because they overwhelmingly add to the already-high levels of visual noise in all discussion pages, they interfere with my ability to select-by-double-clicking text, and I can't fathom the need or desire for such an implementation to merely duplicate the preexisting functionality in page histories. Fourthords (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Nardog's suggestion working for you? Could you re-explain what you wrote in this comment, as I'm not sure to get what you expect.

Thank you for the explanation regarding permalinks. I'm curious of your usage of select text by-double-clicking as it is not something I experience (I know it can differ, as the OS, the browser, the user and more are all different). Regarding History, I'll be very honest: it is night and day. I don't need anymore to dig into an history page of a busy page to find the comment. One click on the timestamp now suffices to get a link, and that link will work even if the comment is moved elsewhere. But again, I'm not saying this to convince you: like I said, we are all different. :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the English Wikipedia village pump discussion, I cobbled together code from several different suggestions into something that's most of the way towards fixing the issue—.ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink {pointer-events: none; color: inherit; cursor:text;}. It's the last of that, properly translating the cursor to an I-beam, which isn't working.

Aligning a text-selection cursor is often fiddly, so to select a line or block of text, it's often easier to just double-click in the middle of a word and then drag to complete the selection (or triple-click to select an entire paragraph). Say I wanted to select just the date stamp of your first reply here: I can (now) just double click on "2024" and drag my cursor backwards through the "1 July". If that were still a clickable gizmo, I can't click on any part of it to select all or partial amounts of it; I'd have to click and drag from either end of the link to select the whole thing, and then delete the parts I didn't want after pasting. (Does that make sense? It's hard to clearly describe intuitive UI machinations. This has been my experience selecting text across multiple OSes and browsers.)

Page history is transparent, though. It proves what was said when by whom. The clickable time/date stamp is an exercise in hope and prayers that its honestly reflective. If we were to rely on such a mechanism, we would still then need to check the history of that page verify its authenticity: please pardon my example. At best, it just adds steps; at worse, it could easily stir accusations, recriminations, confusion, and trouble. Fourthords (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The text selection problem is the same as in phab:T367895#9904443 – pointer-events:none does as if the text wasn’t there at all, and if something isn’t there, it’s no surprise you can’t select it properly.

This is due to several technical constraints, mainly on how caching is done to create these permalinks. I don’t think it would be impossible to do it: simply the links need to be removed (or added) post-cache, just like how discussion activity or reply and topic subscription buttons are added post-cache, depending on the user preferences. The argument about increasing the number of preferences is valid, but it’s just a question of tradeoffs, not something impossible. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can create script to remove link from text or add a button to copy part you want (so it will be even ewsier). wargo (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just noting too that I would like this to be opt-out. Along with 30+ other editors, I use TimestampDiffs.js by Evad37 and it gives me real diff links instead of these comment links. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You didn't say this, did you? I'll bet it still generated a link, though (since my cursor still acts wonky upon hover). Probably best I don't use that comment-link as proof that you said some horrible thing. Or maybe you did say/do something you shouldn't've, but have now edited it, and the comment-link improperly reflects implies you never actually did? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: the message above was created by @Fourthords to make a point.

I'm not really satisfied with the method you used to convey your underlying idea, Fourthords. In particular when the comment stays two weeks online - in particular while I'm on vacation - without any particular warning but the section title.

Anyone can falsify a message, correct, everyone knows that. But with or without permalinks, will users check the history for every comment? Probably not, unless they have doubts about a particular comment. Permalinks have never been created to replace diffs. They provide quicker access to the possibility of quoting a comment, just as it is.

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Permalinks have never been created to replace diffs." Intention notwithstanding, by name and by function, that certainly appears to be their purpose, and they are used that way, without any consideration being given to actual provenance. As I said, they do a worse job and introduce more effort than preexisting software functions, on top of the other considerations I mentioned. "I'm not really satisfied with…" Yeah, I wouldn't be either. Hopefully nobody used the time-stamp-linking function to show that you said those things. How should we go about making sure nobody made the obvious assumption that a software-based official link to "your comment" was the real deal? I guess that's now the impersonatee's burden to bear. Fourthords (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is FUD. Before we had nothing. Now we have something that is imperfect but of which the provenance can be checked if people really wanted to. Almost anything can be abused if people want to. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Before we had nothing." Before, we had this link which always links to my original comment, and simultaneously proves I said it (and not Trizek (WMF)). Now we have a replacement link that only sometimes performs only the first of those functions (and needlessly complicates text selection, an admittedly minor yet annoying issue). "This is FUD." Despite your gracious characterization, I'm actually not a marketeer, politician, pollster, nor cultist; I'm also not spreading any negative, dubious, or false information; I'm providing feedback. Fourthords (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply