Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

/me disagrees. Sometimes i want to add a new section, sometimes i don't. I think the current behavior is better (that just imho).

Concur; it's perfectly legitimate to want to create a talk page without adding a section title, and it would be incredibly annoying for MW to try and persuade you otherwise.  WONTFIX.

Every single topic should have its headline. I heard this request from many MediaWiki users / admins for a long time.

Reopening with added "optionally" word to make it more clear. There can be configuration variable for that.

Adding topics is not the only reason to create a talk page.  Banner tagging, categorisation, etc, do not require titles and it would be incredibly annoying for MW to impose it.  A config variable does not resolve that issue, nor would a user preference.  The way MW tries to be over-clever with &redlink=1 is already bad enough without making it more so.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Every single topic should have its headline. I heard this request from many
> MediaWiki users / admins for a long time.
> 

Yes, but just because you're creating the page doesn't mean you're adding a new topic, like Happy-melon says in comment 4

> Reopening with added "optionally" word to make it more clear. There can be
> configuration variable for that.

$wgMakeTalkRedlinksHaveNewSection is a terrible idea. A user preference would be even worse.

I agree with the original WONTFIX.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Every single topic should have its headline. I heard this request from many
> > MediaWiki users / admins for a long time.
> > 
> 
> Yes, but just because you're creating the page doesn't mean you're adding a new
> topic, like Happy-melon says in comment 4

Eh, and what else you do than starting topic?

> > Reopening with added "optionally" word to make it more clear. There can be
> > configuration variable for that.
> 
> $wgMakeTalkRedlinksHaveNewSection is a terrible idea. A user preference would
> be even worse.
> 
> I agree with the original WONTFIX.

1) Why is it terrible idea? Be descriptive.

2) Just because you won't utilize it, it doesn't mean nobody else will. Feedback of MediaWiki users should be taken in consideration.

3) Cirwin also suggested extension-way alternative to solve this.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Eh, and what else you do than starting topic?

As I said in comment 4, actions like adding project banners, metadata tags, and other things, are not topics and so do not require a title (indeed actively should not have one).  

> 2) Just because you won't utilize it, it doesn't mean nobody else will.
> Feedback of MediaWiki users should be taken in consideration.

This is not so much "I/you/we won't utilise it" as "a significant number of users will be thoroughly pissed off by it".  Feedback from MediaWiki users is generally negative towards deliberately introducing pointless overintelligence.  MediaWiki is not an AI.
 
> 3) Cirwin also suggested extension-way alternative to solve this.

That's great.  Still WONTFIX on core.


> > /me disagrees.
...
> > WONTFIX
...
> > I agree with the original WONTFIX.

Don't bugwar. Write an extension if you want; but this has been shot down by three separate developers.

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Eh, and what else you do than starting topic?
> 
> As I said in comment 4, actions like adding project banners, metadata tags, and
> other things, are not topics and so do not require a title (indeed actively
> should not have one).  

You can ALWAYS save page without filling the "headline" inputbox.

By the way, if there was eg. checkbox "start a new section" (checked by default) aside the inputbox, one could uncheck it in case of "adding project banners, metadata tags..."

There are random ways how to solve this the way everybody will find what he needs.


> > 2) Just because you won't utilize it, it doesn't mean nobody else will.
> > Feedback of MediaWiki users should be taken in consideration.
> 
> This is not so much "I/you/we won't utilise it" as "a significant number of
> users will be thoroughly pissed off by it".

How would they be pissed off? Is it going to block them somehow from using of talk pages? Of course not. It doesn't bring pretty much anything else in fact, than splitting the order of summary box and content edit box. Also, if there was a way to have people choose the way they like, nobody would be pissed of at all.


> > 3) Cirwin also suggested extension-way alternative to solve this.
> 
> That's great.  Still WONTFIX on core.

Changed the product and component then. You should have done that though, because it has been mentioned here.

You can use something like this in your [[Special:MyPage/common.css]]:

var changeRedTalkPageLinks = function(){
	$('#ca-talk.new')
		.removeClass('new')
		.find('a')
			.attr('href', function(i,href){
				return href.replace('redlink=1', 'section=new');
			});
};
$(changeRedTalkPageLinks);

(In reply to comment #9)
> You can use something like this in your [[Special:MyPage/common.css]]:
I mean, [[Special:MyPage/common.js]].