Help talk:Notifications/Thanks/Archive 2

Thanks feature update
Hi everyone, thank you so much for all your good feedback about the Thanks feature!

We have reviewed all the comments from a variety of channels (this Thanks talk page, the Notifications talk page, the Village Pump and this Bugzilla ticket), and have started to discuss and prioritize feature requests, based on that feedback. To keep this discussion more focused, we will be posting responses and updates on this talk page, and link to it from the other pages.

Here are some of the requests we are now working on, listed in order of priority -- along with a few questions for you to help us focus on the key issues.

I. Thanks link Over a dozen people have reported issues with the thanks link, which has caused some to accidentally click "thank" instead of "undo" on history and diff pages. This is our top priority, as it appears that the current placement next to undo is clearly problematic (as pointed out in this post).

To help us solve this issue quickly, we would be grateful if you could answer these questions, so we can pinpoint the problem and its solution more accurately:


 * Q1. How many of you have accidentally clicked on 'thanks' instead of 'undo'? Did this happen only once, or are you doing this often?


 * Q2. Where are you getting confused? Is the diff link fine and the history link problematic? Is it the other way around? Are both a problem?


 * Q3. What solution would best address this issue for you? Could it be solved by adding more space or a divider between the links? or would this require a two-step confirmation process? or an 'unthank' button?

(Keep in mind that adding more space is easy, but adding a second confirmation step requires a bit more development -- while providing an 'unthank' function would be a significant effort, because we would need to introduce a delay function on the back-end to make that possible.)

Your answers will help us confirm the severity of the issue, as well as come up with a better solution. Right now, the proposed solution on this Bugzilla ticket seems promising and could be developed relatively quickly, as proposed by ypnypn9, who suggests that if you click "thank", you get a pop-up saying:

Thank for this edit. (OK) (Cancel)

What do you think? This solution seems reasonable and practical to us, because it would both clarify what the link means, and provide a confirmation/undo option.

'''II. Different icon''' A number of people have expressed concerns about the use of a heart icon for the Thanks notification, as outlined in this post -- and various alternatives have been proposed by participants. We have passed on these ideas to our design team for review and they are considering their options. This issue is a bit trickier, because we are trying to establish a general visual language that can work across applications, and there is already a precedent for using a heart for expressing gratitude, in the form of the WikiLove tool. We also note that using a heart to show your appreciation is now widely used across many top websites, so it is becoming a best practice as a result. That said, we are definitely looking into this issue and will respond with more concrete recommendations after we've heard back from our designers.

These are the first two issues we're focusing on right now, because they seemed to be the highest priority based on the number of comments we received so far. As more suggestions come in from your usage of the tool, we will continue to look for ways to optimize this feature based on community feedback.

'''III. First stats''' For now, you might be interested in these first statistics about this feature: since we deployed it last Thursday, about 2,161 Thanks notifications have been triggered by over a thousand unique users. This represents an average of about 3% of total notifications events, which is comparable to the percentage of notifications for page reviews or user mentions, as shown on this metrics dashboard.

That's it for this update. We will post another update as soon as we've heard more from you on the questions above -- and had a chance to discuss your recommendations. In the meantime, I would like to express my gratitude to all the folks who gave us positive feedback about this experimental feature. And I love that many of you used the 'Thanks' tool to show your appreciation for our work -- which seemed very appropriate ;o) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * The "pop-up confirmation" solution is my preference.
 * Changing the color might also be useful,
 * eg on diff pages: Latest revision as of 18:26, 5 June 2013 (edit) (undo) ( thank )
 * eg on history pages: 18:26, 5 June 2013‎ Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,586 bytes) (+5,168)‎ ‎ . . (→‎ Thanks feature update: new section) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank )
 * I've almost accidentally clicked "thank" a few times, in both diff pages and history pages, because I'm used to the last bold blue link in that line being "undo". A visual hint would help avoid that, at least for sighted users without colorblindness (possibly a reduced font-size, in addition, for their sake).
 * Someone with additional buttons (twinkle, admin-buttons, etc) would need to check that the suggested changes don't interfere with the way those tools are currently displayed. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding 1: I don't think an undo functionality is necessary, but there needs to be a confirmation step. Don't increase any spacing, history pages are far too crowded already! --Patrick87 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Mistakenly clicked thanks only once; 2) I was expecting a confirmation; 3) A confirmation and/or an unthank link would resolve the problem. Brycehughes (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Mistakenly thanked the wrong user (While I was trying to de-escalate an issue, I thanked him for a ccomment that was non-flattering) 2) No. 3) Unthank button is the best. I like the thank function, and I'd rather be able to thank people quick enough, and without hassles or anything. Its uncomfortable adjusting to it now, but having to use two clicks for a potentially long time is non helpful. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of a confirmation. I almost clicked 'thanks' rather than 'undo' on a diff page, and that's despite already knowing that misclicks were a problem.  As for 'unthank', would it be simpler to unthank if the person hadn't already seen the notification, and if the recipient had already seen it, to generate an error message that says it's too late?  I think that most of these misclicks would be undone within seconds, and most of us won't see the notification that quickly.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And now I've misclicked on a history page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unthanking would be difficult, because our preferences allow email notifications for things like "thanks", which would be triggered instantaneously. That's at least partially what Fabrice meant, by having to introduce a timed-delay into the system to cope with unthanking. –Quiddity (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But as Technical 13 pointed out on a related Bugzilla ticket, the system could delay the email a minute or two, to give people time to undo it.  Ignatz mice•talk 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty difficult from a backend engineering point of view, unfortunately; it is a possibility we'd discussed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re 1: A popup does seem like the best option (especially [maybe] if there was an option in the prefs to turn it off once people get used to whatever the new placement is). But that depends on how, exactly-it's implemented—some people will have popups disabled, and some will have JavaScript off. I dunno if there's any way to get popups in HTML...  Ignatz mice•talk 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If they've got JS disabled then they're not really going to be able to use Echo anyway. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Echo is about usable without JavaScript now. My main bug bear there is the loss of the "you have new messages" orange bar. I think you really mean we're not able to use Thanks. I can receive thanks without JavaScript, but am unable to send it unless I resort to the API. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooh, it's got more workable? Excellent :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't mis-thanked, but I have been being very careful. I have been mis-thanked once. I don't think re-positioning is necessary, or extra space, provided a mis-click on "Thank" is not final. An "Are you sure?" or "Confirm?" pop-up is my preferred answer - seems to me more natural, and consistent with many other processes that require confirmation; also, I guess, easier to implement than an "Unthank". As I said on the other thread, I seriously dislike the pink heart, and that would be enough to stop me using the feature (which would be a pity). I guess there are two cultural divides here, young/old and US/Brit, and I am on the un-gushy side of both. Something based on a tick, or a smiley? JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Quiddity, Patrick87, Brycehughes, TheOriginalSoni, WhatamIdoing, Ignatz and JohnCD: thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions and evaluate our options for resolving this issue! Your responses are really helpful, and I am glad to see that a consensus seems to be emerging already. I would like to invite some of the folks who participated on other threads to also answer the three questions listed in the first section above (now labeled Q1, Q2 and Q3 for clarity). I hope you don't mind if I use the mention notifications to bring this thread to your attention: The DJ, Arxiloxos, AutomaticStrikeout, Acalamari, Tito Dutta, Kumioko, Theopolisme, Beeblebrox, Fylbecatulous, GiantSnowman, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Rjwilmsi, Technical 13, Clem Rutter, Amaury, Edokter, PartTimeGnome, Kww, and Atlasowa (sorry if I missed anyone). We are particularly interested in finding out if the issues you experienced a few days ago are still a problem for you (Q1), what is the main pain point for you (Q2), and which of the proposed solutions would seem most practical from your standpoint. Look forward to your responses, so we can start implementing a solution as soon as possible. Thanks again for all your constructive comments, which are invaluable to us! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've mis-clicked 'thanks' instead of 'undo' far too many times :( GiantSnowman 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes, definitely the confirmation popup. It both clarifies what the link means, and provides a confirmation/undo option. Even after using (thank), this undo/thank combination confused me into believing I could undo the thank by (undo). ;-) The thank confirmation popup would be expected behaviour. In the diff I think (thank) should be more prominent. Users should be encouraged to send thanks from the diff, because they can see there what they are thanking for ;-) (2) Please don't use the pink heart icon. It's a bit too much and the wrong connotation. The Wikilove icon is widely disliked on german Wikipedia already, although WikiLove was never activated. The removal of the OBOD was noted critically, also the Facebook-style-notifications (and also the many WMF tracking cookies that mysteriously appeared in the last months on de-wiki). Please spare us at least the outcry about the pink bikeshed heart... ;-) Maybe consult the internationalization team about symbols? The smiley seems popular, the flower symbol is good too. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About confirmation, yes, I want to see one after "thank"ing someone. When you first launched the feature, I was testing and expecting to get confirmation that your "thank" has been forwarded/given. Most probably User:Bgwhite got multiple "thanks" from me at that time. --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings Fabrice and no problem for linking that way. I don't mind at all in fact I think that is the only good thing in the notifications change that is useful. But that's just me. As for the three questions I don't really have a strong opinion about the thanks function. It doesn't show up under my watchlist and I generally don't go to the trouble of digging through users contributions so I don't think I'll misclick too often. I do think its still possible though given the close proximity to the undo button. I don't really like the heart icon either but its already on the WikiLove app so we should keep things consistent IMO. If we change it in one location we should probably change it in both. I don't really have an opinion about the fixes either because as I mentioned I don't really think its needed and if it is we should just link it through the WikiLove app (which I don't really think is a big necessity either BTW). I hate to sound like a grump here but I still think that too much time and effort is being spent on nice to have stuff, creating and fixing things we don't need and didn't ask for that really don't fix or improve anything. I also find it annoying that there are so many other requests and improvements that have been asked for (some for years) and are still pending because time is being spent on stuff like this. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Colouring/styling the thank link sounds good. Do not want a confirmation before, it's another click, would rather have a popup confirmation with an undo option that appears for some seconds after (like the edit saved confirmation). Rjwilmsi  19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Building undo functionality is, from an engineering perspective, very difficult. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd even prefer a two click process to prevent (deliberate or undeliberate) "thank" flodding. When thanking authors becomes an "on-the-fly" task, what is it worth anymore? If I want tho thank an author, it probably should be worth clicking to times to me, shouldn't it? --Patrick87 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay Fabrice, since you invited me by name I'll answer. I'm not sure how helpful you'll find this, since my issues are a bit different from those of most... 1: I have never misclicked the "thank" link. The one time I clicked it was intentional. However, I have not had occasion to undo anything since the feature was introduced; I don't know if I would have misclicked had I been intending to undo anything. 2: I was mildly confused when  upon clicking the link, though I quickly realised why. This was on a diff page, though I would have been equally confused on a history page.  3: The ideal solution in my case would be to allow thanks to work without JavaScript. Rather than being a broken link, "thank" should target something like Special:Thanks/REVISIONID, which would ask me to confirm my thanks. Alternatively, simply hide the link if JS is disabled, to avoid page clutter and user confusion (this isn't a particularly important feature for me). I've logged bug 49161 for this.  Of course, if I were able to use thanks I would then worry about accidental misclicks. My solution for non-JS users above includes a confirmation page that solves the problem. For JS users, a small confirmation pop-up could be displayed, allowing them to remain on the history or diff page. I don't think extra spacing or dividers would help, and would further clutter the page. I appreciate that an "undo thanks" feature would be Hard to implement; I don't think it reasonable to ask the developers to go to that much effort when a much easier solution (the confirmation step) is available. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll comment in the morning. I've got a 21 month old that is taking alll of my focus right now... Technical 13 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * She fell asleep and I have a moment. I rarely use undo on the history page, so I haven't mis-clicked there.  I occasionally will use it on diff pages, but haven't mis-clicked yet due to the fact that I've had no thank links as i've been working on  for other editors that just want to disable the thanks feature but didn't trust clicking the "exclude me from feature experiments" checkbox for fear of missing another experiment they may be interested in.  Still not quite done with that script, I can't figure out why it seems to disable the ability for the page to know which li is selected... Anyways...
 * I've been thinking long and hard about this and personally if I had to click twice every time I wanted to thank someone, I wouldn't use the feature (I'd actually be an intensional user of my script). I think that despite it being a little more work, adding a short delay to the actual sending of the thank giving an opportunity to "un-thank" or "de-thank" is the way to go.  I would bet that the statistical data would show that a lot less people accidentally click on it than intentionally click on it and forcing all of the intentional uses to have to click twice is an inconvenience in my opinion and discourages use.
 * As for the icon used... I've suggested a few things, and they have all had there flaws... I actually just had another idea today that I was busy with playing money with my daughter and thought hey, what if the icon was the localized symbol for money for the user? I'm sure that this will be shot down as difficult to implement, but I think it would be clear and cool if in the US users saw "$" or "¢" and in the UK or Europe "₤" ( I think that is the Euro sign, if not, feel free to change it ) and in China or Japan they would see the Yen or in France the symbol for the Frank... Not sure exactly what the specs for the icons are, but perhaps an animated gif or png that cycles through all of the symbols at a rate of one every other second would be cool... Otherwise it would be hard to know which symbol is right for the viewer (would have to guess based on timezone/offset probably).
 * Feature improvement idea... I would like to see the thank link also added to my Watchlist/Recent changes... That is where I would be most likely to use it a lot.
 * I'll be sure to come back and add some more thoughts and ideas later, time for bed for me as well. Technical 13 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, France doesn't use the franc anymore, but the UK still uses the pound sterling. France uses the euro. The pound sign = £/₤, euro = €. πr2 (t • c) 14:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that currency lesson... What's everyone think of this idea? "currency symbols" == good "thanks" icon? Technical 13 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We'd have to build up a global, accurate list of currency icons and automatically geolocate every user; this sounds non-trivial. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that and there would likely be some privacy concerns which is why I modified my suggestion to just be "an animated gif or png that cycles through all of the symbols at a rate of one every other second". Technical 13 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the number of currencies in the world and the shortness of the time the image would be displayed, it is improbable that any user would reliably get to see their currency. It's also probable they'd be unfamiliar with a lot of them. I can say with some certainty that we will never solve for a UI problem by introducing an animated gif. It's much like Regular Expressions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Q1: I have accidentally "thanked" someone several times in the past few days. (Or at least I think I have; I have no idea what this looks like to the recipient.) Q2: I was not "confused". I was using a cell phone, and the combination of small links and big fingers makes it all too easy to activate a link you never meant to click on. Q3: Add a "verify" or "oops" step. There should always be some way to either verify or undo whatever you do. One-click-and-it-goes-live buttons are a tool of the devil. That's why I asked to have my rollback right deactivated; I was tired of having to undo and apologize for accidental rollbacks. Bottom line, my opinion: either add a "verify" step, or give us an option to disable the damn thing. Thanks. (BTW about those 2,161 uses of the Thanks button - that would be more meaningful if you knew how many of them were on purpose vs. accidental.) --MelanieN (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Q1 & Q2: I've only done this once: Here is the scene of the mishap: . I follow the experimental edit log of 28bot and pick up what articles need attention there. I have to click on the history though to see the diff to discern what needs to be mended. I just knew this involved 'example images' (the bot uses a key code for errors). So when I got to the diff it was a simple revert of that and a botched image file, so I just merrily clicked on what was always "undo". Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect it to have evolved into 'thank'! I surely just wished to be able to undo the thanks!!   However, I am a fast learner (fool me once...), so now I know what's where however:  for Q3: a simple  routine would be lovely to give a gentle hint of do I really want to thank...  It was painful only because I still had to revert and then place a gentle warning on the user page (Vandalism 0), which vexed me and surely confused the user.  ツ  Thanks!   Fylbecatulous   talk  20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Recap
Hi folks, thanks for all your constructive responses. It's such a pleasure to collaborate productively with you guys to find a good solution to this 'Thanks link' issue together :) ...

To get a better sense of where our 'impromptu workgroup' stands on this issue, I compiled your responses on this spreadsheet. Here's a quick summary.

'''Q1. How often do you misclick?''' Your responses suggest that accidental misclicking doesn't happen often for most of you: a) Never	38% b) Only a few times	38% c) Often	23% d) All the time	0%

'''Q2. Do you misclick more on the diff or history page?''' There are too few responses to this question to suggest that misclicking happens more on one page than the other. For now, we'll assume the problem is the same on both pages.

'''Q3. Which solution do you recommend?''' Your favorite solutions seem to be either the confirmation or undo options: a) add a space or visual cue (e.g. colored link)	0% b) add a confirmation step (e.g. pop-up)	54% c) add an 'undo' option (e.g. 'unthank', countdown)	46%

Key findings Here are my main take-aways from this feedback:
 * about a fourth of respondents report misclicking often
 * this seems serious enough to require a special solution
 * adding more space or a visual cue doesn't seem sufficient
 * over half of respondents prefer the confirmation panel option
 * nearly half of respondents prefer the undo panel option
 * some users think the confirmation option defeats the purpose of a one-click feature
 * some users suggest a short delay for undo (a few folks have proposed a quick countdown)
 * an undo option lets us optimize the UI for the primary use case (people who don't misclick)

We'll discuss our options with Kaldari, Vibha Bamba and our project team on Monday. Building a delay on the back-end is likely to require several days of development, which would slow down our work on other important goals for the Notifications project. Though it may be easier to build a delay on the front-end, as several people have proposed (if we don't mind that the thanks doesn't get sent if they close the window or hit the 'back' button). The two-step confirmation is easiest from a development standpoint, but it introduces an extra click (which seems to unfairly penalize the majority of users who don't misclick).

So a possible solution might be to simply show a quick countdown after you click on the thanks link, giving you 10 seconds or so to cancel, as so:

Quiddity (talk | contribs)‎. . (50,586 bytes) (+5,168)‎ ‎. . (→‎ Thanks update ) (undo | Sending thanks in 10 seconds  - Cancel)

This countdown would be client-side, not server-side, and would start at 10 seconds, then 9, 8, 7, etc. -- ending up with the same 'thanked' message we now display. This idea of a short countdown was suggested by several community and team members, such as WhatamIdoing, Technical 13 and Jorm, to name but a few. It seems promising, if it could be done reliably on the front-end, without requiring special back-end functionality or delaying our other features. What do you think?

Either way, we'll get one of these solutions developed this week (e.g.: the confirmation popup or the short countdown, if feasible). But please understand that it may not be a perfect solution, if we want to meet all our other goals this month. Our approach with this experimental feature has been to keep it barebones initially, and incrementally improve it with small tweaks, based on community feedback, rather than try to figure it out all at once.

For that reason, we would like to first solve the Thanks link issue this week, then revisit the discussion about icons the following week, since it seems less urgent. We hope this approach works for you.

The good news is that more and more people are starting to use these Thanks notifications (which are now as frequent as Page Review notifications -- with 3,336 thanks sent in our first week). Also, more people are coming out to show their appreciation on this talk page -- and our team members are getting quite a few thanks notifications from you … which of course is music to our ears :)

To me, this small experiment is a great example of the Wikipedia movement at its best, with all stakeholders working together to incrementally improve key features together, setting aside our diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to create a friendlier and more collaborative environment for all users. Thank you all for making this is possible! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the countdown: I think it's a really bad idea. As far as I understand you have to wait 10 seconds before you can close the window. At least for me (and I'm sure for many others, too) giving thanks on a talk page and then closing the windows would be a typical workflow. I open nearly every new page in a new tab, and close that tab as soon as my work is done there. I'm quite sure such a timeout feature will produce a new wave of unsatisfied editors
 * Furthermore I don't think that the people who "think the confirmation option defeats the purpose of a one-click feature" will be happy with a countdown either. I assume the countdown (instead of a simple confirmation step) is considered especially to make those people happy? The reason is simple: Those who do not have the time to click two times, will surely not have the time to wait 10 seconds.
 * Eventually I think a countdown will make the whole process very hard to understand, especially for beginners. Questions that will arise are: When is thanks given? As soon as I click the button? But why is there some countdown? Do I have to confirm before the countdown ends? What if I leave the page before countdown ends? Will my thanks simply be discarded?
 * So I think the only reasonable solution is the confirmation step, since (as you wrote) an undo option is not a real option since it would just need to much resources for only a small gain. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , Fabrice mentioned it happening on the backend, which means to me that you will still be able to close the page right after clicking and move on and it will send right away. If you misclick, you will have 10 seconds to cancel unless you close the tab/page. Technical 13 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Fabrice said "This countdown would be client-side, not server-side". So the question is: Is thanks sent to the backend before or only after the countdown? I'm sure Fabrice will update us on this with the definite answer. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that by client-side it was meant with the use of cookies... Technical 13 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think our editors are smart enough to figure out that "Sending thanks in 10 seconds" means "Thanks will be sent in 10 seconds and has not yet been sent." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not... Is thanks sent to the server the second I click the link and if I close the page it is saved nonetheless? Or is it sent after 10 seconds if I do not click cancel? I think it is confusing (but maybe I'm just to deep into internals myself). --Patrick87 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:Patrick87 here. Unless you know, "Sending thanks in 10 seconds" could just as easily mean "Thanks are going to be sent, and that's the way it is." Heck, I've just been informed that I am now officially an editor, after editing WP for years, and there are ****loads of stuff that I see other WP-ans taking for granted all the time that are just black holes to me. I'm not complaining: I accept being a relative novice here and am eager to learn. But I've seen in a whole career that it's very easy for an experienced user of anything to assume that other users are as just as experienced as they are, or understand X because it seems to the experienced one that "even a child would understand it"... whether it is or not. --Thnidu (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One question regarding the potential coonfirmation step: Will you implement it via a second page you have to visit (similar to when you use undo, were you reach a new page, too) or will it be handled with JavaScript without the need to leave the page (which would be the preferable option, but probably needs a non-JavaScript fallback). --Patrick87 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the 10-second delay were truly annoying to some users, then perhaps "Sending thanks in 10 seconds - Cancel - Send immediately" would solve that problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we have replaced a simple two-click solution, taking maybe a second and familiar from many existing implementations, with a one-click-plus-distracting-ten-second-countdown-which-can-be-got-rid-of-by-a-second-click solution, which is more difficult to implement and is preferred by less than half the responders. I absolutely agree with Patrick87. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think this is not expected behaviour and confusing (confirmation countdown for thanks...?). Let's compare with existing implementations:
 * I edit and click "save" -> I get a post-edit confirmation, floating for two seconds (1 click + confirmation popup)
 * I click "undo" -> I get the diff with the undone version, to confirm and comment. (2 clicks)
 * I click "rollback" -> I get the confirmation of successful rollback (1 click + confirmation page)
 * I click on the bookmark star -> i get a confirmation popup for a few seconds (1 click + confirmation popup)
 * I click on the WikiLovwe heart -> i get a dialog box that i can dismiss by clicking X or select options (2 clicks)
 * Shouldn't this "thank"ing be consistent with other behaviour on-site? I don't really see the benefit of the countdown-confirmation. It's a compromise between a 1-click and a 2-click solution? How many "thanks" do we expect to lose by asking users for a second click, -30%, -10%? Any experiences/ research? --Atlasowa (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks confirmation feature added
Per the feedback we received on the problems with the Thank links, we've added a confirmation step: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/67591/. The code still needs to be reviewed and merged, but it should go out some time in the next few weeks. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kaldari. Let's try it out that way and see if it solves the problem. Given that there was some strong opposition to the countdown idea, the confirmation step may be a more practical solution. If it isn't, we can revisit after we've all had a chance to try it out. Much appreciated. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Kaldari and Fabrice! Thanks for all the great work, I love the thank action. My two cents: I found the first version (no confirmation) to be a more light-hearted and fun way to interact with other editors. The yes/no confirmation box gives undue weight to the action. heather walls (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * & I will withdraw my objections to the confirmation step if you can offer an option on  that will allow users to opt of of the confirmation.  That sound doable and fair instead of implementing a delay? Technical 13 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You and MZ seems to have diametrically opposing views on this. MZ didn't even want the confirmation step to be configurable per wiki, while you would prefer that it be configurable per user. I guess we'll have to wait and see what other folks think to see if there is any kind of consensus on this. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need more experience with this before we figure out what tweaks, if any, need to be made. I haven't even managed to use the new version.  Can we talk about this again in a few weeks, if anyone still wants to, rather than trying to change it every day?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've personally been opposed to the confirmation step from the start and apparently it seems to be a deal breaker for others as well since there has been a sudden increase in linkbacks to User:Technical 13/Scripts/NoThanks.js which had only two people using it before the confirmation step was added. Technical 13 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi : Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions for improving this feature! My recommendation is to wait a few days until more people have had a chance to try the feature, as WhatamIdoing suggests. I have noted a slight decrease in the volume of Thanks notifications on this dashboard since we deployed the confirmation step, but we won't know for several days if this trend holds. Personally, I would have preferred a more lightweight confirmation feature (e.g. a small flyout next to the Thanks link) -- or an undo feature; but either of these options would require a lot more development time than we can now devote to this project, according to Kaldari. So let's take it one step at a time, listen to what other users have to say, and determine our next steps in about a week, if that works for you. Does anyone else have feedback about this feature at this time? Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the new confirmation step implementation. The green/red buttons are especially helpful, and reminded me of this. It's simple and instant.
 * (I'd weakly prefer less bold color choices, perhaps something that fits with our predominantly pastel color choices at En:Wikipedia and commons (See Help:Using colours), but I'm not sure what the current practices/recommendations/aesthetics are at other languages/sisterprojects, beyond Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. Plus that's essentially an entirely unrelated topic. Sorry for tangenting!). –Quiddity (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should see a decrease in the number of 'thanks' being sent, because there won't be any misclicks resulting in thanks sent. If my own experience is typical, then it might drop by a quarter.
 * As for the "sudden increase" in people opting out, going from two to seven is indeed a massive relative change, but it's still only 7 people out of active editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , according to, there may be a way for there to be a user script to opt out of the confirmation step. I believe it should be in the feature's code directly, but I will be happy with a userscript.  As long as I have a way to make the feature appear to be as lightweight as it can be.  I'll add a note here and to the instructions for NoThanks on the "How to disable this feature" page. Technical 13 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I loved the "thank" feature, until recently... Now there is the "are you sure you want to thank editorx for this edit". Apparently there has been a fall in the number of thanking clicks after the feature was introduced. However, this may not be the prevention of mistakes but the deterrence effect of seeing a warning dialogue box. "Gosh, ought I really be thanking editorx for this???" I think we should lose it. There's not enough love in the world, and I'm quite mystified as to what could possibly be wrong with thanking someone, even if it was done by mistake. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What could possibly go wrong? For example: a newbie editor makes a personal attack. Mis-clicking on the "Undo" button, you hit the "Thank" button next to it. Now, either the newbie thinks his message was approved, or he thinks the thanks were sarcasm. You have to follow a "Don't do that again please" warning with "...and by the way, ignore my Thankyou message, I didn't mean it, it was a mistake!" It is likely that an edit you intended to undo is not one that you would want to thank for. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the undo should be the first port of call in that case. Some form of talk page message is always more appropriate. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote somewhere before: If your feeling to thank somebody is so weak that you won't even take the time to confirm your thanks and click a second button to do so, then the contribution probably wasn't worth being thanked in the first place.
 * Furthermore I don't think the thanks feature was installed long enough to talk about a decrease in thanking-numbers now that the confirmation step was introduced. Maybe after having learned about the feature people just stop to test it. --Patrick87 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Before 'Thank', some editors habitually posted talk page messages of thanks for small edits – even though they may have done so after accumulating a certain number of 'reminders' on their watched pages. Now, I find there is a greater tendency of editors to do it for the small edits with the thank button – I certainly do so more freely. The warning dialogue is definitely a deterrent in such marginal cases. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading some of the original complaints, I'd say we should have a double visual cue to separate out the thank button. I have never misclicked, and I don't want an 'undo' button – I prefer low clutter on my edit screen. My suggestion is to perhaps firstly colour the undo button (red) and the thank button (green); then add two more nbsp between the two buttons. Whilst one may not be enough, having both should reduce the misclicking without deterring people who genuinely wish to render thanks. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this change. I agree that the confirmation dialog box is overkill.  I would think differentiating the links with colour should avoid accidental mis-clicks.  —sroc (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the confirmation step. I am now using the feature; I hated it when it was one-click-and-it's-live-whether-you-want-it-to-be-or-not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to say thanks for the confirmation step, which really improves the feature.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I love this feature.
Without butting into this discussion too much, I would just like to point out a wonderful effect of this feature. WikiGnomes, who make a lot of small, by themselves unremarkable edits usually have very little communication. This feature makes it very easy for people to thank WikiGnomes for the wonderful work that they do. It completely removes the (relative) hassle of posting a talk page message. Thank you, WMF, for this cool feature. TheOneSean &#91; U &#124; T &#124; C &#93; 21:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It's such a nice feeling that you get when you're thanked! ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 12:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add here as well. I got thanked yesterday by an editor who had just created an article. I happened to mark it reviewed with Page Curation and then added some complicated categories for the user... and I later received the little heart of appreciation. I have to admit this is nothing anyone would come to my talk page over or paste a Barnstar for; so it did give me the warm fuzzies feeling to have been noticed.  So after all, I do believe this is a keeper.   Fylbecatulous   talk  20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this feature
I used to spend most of my free time contributing to Wikipedia, but now I spend most of my free time contributing to StackExchange sites. On Wikipedia, it seems the only time anyone ever communicates with you is to complain about something you did wrong or to start an argument. All the contributions you make just go out into the void and you don't get much positive feedback about them. Are people reading them and benefiting from your work? Does anyone care? Is it all a waste of time? Then the arguments start and it leads to frustration and burn-out.

On StackExchange, people upvote your answers if they are correct and helpful, and downvote them if they're wrong or need work. You get far more upvotes than downvotes, accruing "reputation points" that, while ultimately useless, serve as a constant reminder that your contributions are being read and appreciated by lots of other people, which motivates you to keep contributing.

I hope this feature will help make editing Wikipedia a more positive experience, reminding users their work is appreciated. — Omegatron (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * —EncMstr (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Change the i-love-you heart to something more neutral
I will never use what to me is an I-love-you icon to express my thanks to anyone on Wikipedia. Yet, I do think the idea of the feature is good, allowing a "small form thanks" for edits that you would not otherwise express gratitude for through a dedicated talk page message, cookie or barnstar. A message from me, no matter how much it is automated or represents a symbol for the feature itself rather than making up a part of the message (which others *might* understand to be the case), is not going to have something attached delivering a meaning that I would not express myself or intend to convey. With the pink heart icon attached, the feature is closed to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , do you have a suggestion for what to replace the heart with? It has been agreed at this point the heart is not desired or preferred, and the development team is open to replacement suggestions. Technical 13 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A simple smiley face would be a neutral and universal symbol. No wink, no big grin, just a smile which would say "You did something that pleased me", the purpose of a "Thanks". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea. A simple smiley face has no unwanted overtones; seems perfect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Walmart ruined the smiley face for me decades ago. How about a thumb up, an OK, +1, or an "agree"?  —EncMstr (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Smiley copyright considerations below, which I have split into a sub-thread. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 20:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then go with a stylized "THANKS", or "THX!" in a circle - the heart is ridiculous, as is the debate about the smiley. Tvoz / talk 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Smiley copyright considerations
True—however, it is also the copyright of Nicolas Loufrani and Wal-mart, both of whom are famously zealous when it comes to protecting their intellectual property rights and would doubtless love a chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation's pie. – iridescent  18:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought Forrest Gump invented it during a jog one day. ;-) As to whether it is copyrighted and this would provide a bar to its use, I would prefer more evidence that this posed a problem, as the smiley face is ubiquitous in every aspect of our global culture.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thumb up and +1 are even worse I assume. If we want this feature we shouldn't copy from Facebook or Google. OK and agree don't sound very honorable at all. I think the Smiley is not a valid trademark anyway after reading Smiley, so I thin we should be fine. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's not copyright, the people who pay The Smiley Company $167 million per year in licensing fees are probably feeling pretty foolish right now. It's ubiquitous because a hell of a lot of ubiquitous companies like Amazon licence it, not because it's some kind of community property. (This, BTW, is why you can't see smileys on phones running open-source software such as Android.) Whether or not something is a trademark has no impact on its copyright status. – iridescent  18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Then the Smiley article is wrong. It's written there that "the judge declared that the smiley face was not a "distinctive" mark, and therefore could not be trademarked by anyone". --Patrick87 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the second time, trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. The Smiley Company is a major multinational, and there is no possibility that the WMF will pick a fight with it that they're certain to lose—certainly not this soon after the Wikivoyage logo debacle. – iridescent  20:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright is the concern here, not trademarks. However, copyright is held in a specific work, not a general idea. No one can hold the copyright on all smileys, because anyone can draw another without copying or referring to an existing one. If there are copyright problems with any particular smiley image, use a different one. E.g. File:Face-smile.svg (from the Tango Desktop Project) is in the public domain.
 * In any case, I'm sure the WMF will run any idea we suggest past their legal team before putting it live. They pay people to worry about this type of thing. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright? Really? No typical smiley reaches the threshold of originality. I did draw "moon faces" when is was three or four years old and did not even now what a smiley was! If copyright (and not trademark) is your concern I don't think there is anything to worry about. But as PartTimeGnome said, there are professionals whose job is to give a legal statement on questions like this, so if we want a smiley, we shouldn't really care about copyright at this point. If it's not possible to have one somebody at WMF will tell us soon enough. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a problem here with people assuming "can't be trademarked in the United States of America" means "can't be trademarked". For basic infrastructure like this, the WMF needs something that cannot be trademarked in every single place on the entire planet, not just something that's okay in the US.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The servers are in the US, so, so far as I know, only US law applies for this kind of issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of the other Wikipedias additionally enforce the laws that affect the majority of their users, e.g., Japanese law for the Japanese Wikipedia. Also, Mediawiki (the software) is used by thousands of non-WMF websites around the world, so whatever they seem to choose logos that will work for everyone rather than logos that only work for US sites.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell me that the image isn't hardcoded into Mediawiki, and that each wiki can choose a culturally appropriate symbol. I don't like a lot of things involved with this feature, but they must have gotten that one right. This discussion should be about the appropriate choice for English Wikipedia. Comments about appropriate defaults for international distribution are a Meta issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we find something that works for everyone? Having the interface be the same across all WMF projects is a desirable goal.  You've also made edits at Commons and the Dutch and German Wikipedias.  Why shouldn't you get the same basic look and feel at each of them?  Do you think that you personally would benefit from having each of them pick different icons for everything?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, I don't think there is a universal symbol that works for everyone. In any event, it shouldn't be hardcoded. The default should be reasonable, but each wiki should be able to customize it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If the "smiley" is copyrighted, then is the legal? πr2 (t • c) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Same question for the smiley in the Article Feedback Tool 5. I see no evidence here that there is a legal problem with the smiley. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing about the discussion here, I started a similar discussion at Village pump (technical). If there are, in fact, issues about copyright, it's my impression that one can make images similar to, but not identical to, the copyrighted image and use them without violating copyright (note: I'm no lawyer, and I might be wrong). I know that Commons has Commons:Category:Smilies, so there should be some properly-licensed images there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's the take-away line from all of the above comments: "I'm no lawyer, and I might be wrong". Let's everyone stop making snap judgements on legal issues that they're unqualified to make and let WMF decide what can/can't be done.  Any alternate suggestions I'm sure will be appreciated and taken on board if the top preference is unworkable.  —sroc (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I might be right, too. :-( --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a general comment, not directed specifically at you, Tryptofish. 8^> —sroc (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I understand, no worries! And, by the way, I also like the idea, floated above, of using a logo based on "Thanks" or an abbreviated spelling of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for multiple edits
Sometimes I'd like to express thanks for a group of edits — for example, when none of them is individually a big deal, but together they're really helpful. Any chance that we could get the chance to issue a single Thanks feature notice for a group of edits? I'm not clear how such a thing would be accomplished from a technical point of view. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just thanked you for a whole range of edits, some obviously not yours. How did that look?  I viewed the range as a diff, then thanked from there. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I got a single notice, which referred only to my first message in this thread. When I clicked the "your edit" link, I was sent to this diff.  Now let's wait for input from someone else who was in that range.  Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a little test too... Then I thought about it, and said hey, if the thanks are going out to multiple people within a range, all of those should register in the Special:Log/thanks so I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=thanks&user=Dennis+Brown&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= and it appears to only send the thanks to the editor of the first edit in the history block. Maybe or  can shed some light on this? Technical 13 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To the first editor in the range? It's the last editor's name that you're looking at in the diff.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the test I did the first and last were the same user... There where however multiple users in the middle. Technical 13 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume that the button is specific to that one edit, like the undo button, even when viewing a range. I'm about to go out of town or I would play with my alt accounts and see more.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However, it's possible to undo a range of edits — view a multi-edit diff (example) and you're given an undo link, which will undo all the edits in the group if possible. I wasn't meaning to ask about multiple thanks for different people; if you make a single contribution to a good group effort, I'd say you should get a normal thanks for your edit.  I meant to ask about a situation in which the same person was making all of the edits; it would seem a little silly to leave separate thanks for each of the edits, since the recipient would get a pile of them.  Enabling a single click to thank lots of people doesn't seem good, since (1) separate thanks for each of them won't bury anyone under a pile of thanks notices, and (2) this would potentially be a good way of thanks-bombing, thus damaging the value of any individual gesture.  Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguably Thanks is designed for situations in which we have a single edit that is not, on its own, a big deal, but helpful. If a group of edits are together a big deal, and all sourced from one user, I'd suggest a personalised message or barnstar would be more appropriate. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But if you give us a hammer, every situation starts to look like a nail ;-) Your point makes a lot of sense, however, and a barnstar is indeed likely a better solution for a series of edits. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I already left the personalised message. Thanks for the explanation; perhaps you could put something to that effect in this page?  Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Error Message with Extension:Thanks
I'm geting an error message "Warning: Missing argument 3 for ThanksHooks::onBeforeCreateEchoEvent in /var/www/html/w/extensions/Thanks/Thanks.hooks.php on line 122 "


 * MediaWiki 1.21.1
 * PHP 5.3.3
 * MySQL 5.5.28

Echo is installed property (1.21 latest stable) and declared in LocalSettings.php before Thanks

Thank is showing up in Special:Version (as version 1.0.0)

Does anyone have a suggestion as to what could be causing this error?

I ran /maintenance/update.php again, just to be sure, rearranged LocalSettings.php by putting both at the bottom, no change. Should I try running 1.20 version of Echo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckoerner (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem, and no one have responded to this error since it's bin added --78.72.179.109 (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks requires the 1.22 version of Echo. I've updated mw:Extension:Thanks to reflect that. Legoktm (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

IP thanking
How come there's no way to thank IPs? (just a few minutes ago I wanted to thank an IP for removing some useless cruft off an article, but I didn't see the button) King Jakob  C2 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's the point in thanking anonymous editors? First of all IPs of many (if not most) ISPs are not static, so the probability the IP editor will ever receive your thanks is very low. Even if an editor edits with a static IP he purposely decided to edit anonymously – therefore accepting or intending not to be contactable by other editors. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Primarily because thank you messages are delivered via the new notifications system, which IPs don't get. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   00:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I miss thanking IPs too! I remember hearing somewhere that there is a 30 minute window after the IP edit for trying to communicate with IPs, meaning: ~30 min with a reasonable chance that the IP does see this/the OBOD. Does anyone know the source of this 30min claim, maybe User:Steven (WMF)? Or was this just on german WP (btw, most german IP are dynamic and change every 24h)? I agree that newbies and IP editors need the positive feeedback too (they get more than enough negative feedback by reverts), this is especially important for WP languages with pending changes (german, arabic, russian, polish,...). I'd be really thankful if someone can give me a link for this 30min recommendation! --Atlasowa (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to be able to thank IPs. It might help recruit more editors. In the meantime, there are templates that can be used to express appreciation for IPs. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I add to this request. Seriously, this is what we should be doing instead of this: appreciating actual contributors. Keφr 09:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Someone tried to thank-button me.  I deserved it.  I am owed a thanks!   And I'm here to collect.      Seriously, you make a button which gives good editors like Anne Delong a nervous this-is-a-caste-system feeling in the pit of her stomach, and you prevent anons from being thanked?  Scroll to bottom of this stats-page; we are retention-flatlined.
 * Strongly suggest that the following workaround be implemented: if the editor is logged in when thanked, they get the notification-dingus.  If the editor is not logged in when thanked, they get a talkpage message, which in turn triggers the orange bar.  This has two benefits:  first, it allows folks to give anons some thanks, which is crucial to WP:RETENTION.  Second, if the anon is doing well and getting a lot of orange-bar-thankyou-messages, it encourages them to create a uid and register.  HTH.
 * p.s. Not-so-coincidentally third, it makes this place feel (if not actually be) less like a caste-system, with Chuck Norris at the top, may he live ten thousand years. p.p.s. The talkpage message should say, and I quote,     "Thanks :-)"     ...it must not be garish  template-spam, because the assumption must be that anons are just regulars who forgot to login.  Actually, that's a fourth benefit, it helps regulars notice if they accidentally are revealing their IP, because they forgot to login.  Thanks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had just raised this at Wiktionary. Talk-page thanks not as good as a more attention-grabbing notice such as the message notification system for registered users. Couldn't something similar be done while the user is logged in? For this to work it would be necessary that the notification be timely, which in turn means that the thanks button must be available from Special:RecentChanges, the watchlists, and any similar page used for patrolling. DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I miss thanking IPs too! Some IPs are nice, really. Maybe some day will grow up and get an username... But until then, why not thank them? Aren't IPs human? Hafspajen (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you are affraid that they will start thank-vandalizing. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a hazard, of a different proposal. The proposal here, is for Hafspajen to be able to click 'thank' for an edit made by an anon, which would then place the plaintext "Thanks :-)" message on the anon's talkpage.  In other words, anon makes a useful edit, registered pseudonym thanks the anon.
 * What you are talking about is the reverse scenario, where the registered pseudonym makes an edit, and the anon clicks the 'thank' button a million times, so as to annoy the registered editor. Having seen not one, but two cases of registered editors abusing the thank-button to snarkily annoy their content-opponents, I guess I'd be willing to keep anons from being able to see the thank-button.
 * Still, by that logic, anons should not be able to see the edit-button, right? So I support both types of thanking, pseudonym-to-anon, and also anon-to-pseudonym, but methinks the pseudonym-to-anon thanks is far more important for editor-retention.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I've had at least one red-named editor announce that they were going to join the project "full time" after I thanked them. Extending thanks to IPs could be a great recruitment tool. Brycehughes (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too – Not all IPs are transients. I was just disappointed to discover that I can't thank 174.141.182.82 for cleaning up my recent typing error (although I just realized I can simply leave a note of thanks on their Talk page instead). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too I came here after unsuccessfully trying to thank an IP. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see an easy way to thank IPs too. Since there are many user talk messages for IPs (warning and welcome messages, for example), there must be a way. Clicking a thank-link for an IP could result in an automatically posted simple thank you message on their talk page. Gap9551 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Template:Thank You IP for this already exists for reverting vandalism. It's a step in the right direction. Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An alternative is using the welcome message template for IPs (if they haven't been welcomed yet), Template:Welcome-anon-t. Gap9551 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This issue is now up on the "wishlist", see here. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation suggestion
It would be helpful if instead of "this edit" the confirmation box gave the edit summary of the edit. This will help insure someone is not thanking the "wrong" edit (as I just did). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This suggestion was implemented, I see the editor name now, a real improvement. But, "Are you sure you want to thank ThaddeusB for this edit?" - this sounds like the software is second-guessing me (Really sure? This bloke? Deserving to be thanked?), not a neutral confirmation OK. It is difficult and probably too early to tell, but it seems that "thanks" notifications have fallen from ~400 thanks daily to ~250 thanks daily (since around June 11). I partially blame this on the formulated confirmation text ;-) which should be improved. Why can't we just take the Thanks notification, as seen by the receiver, and turn it around: You thank Mary Dunlap for this edit on Tamalpais Valley "Does anyone have references about Coyote Ridge?" - OK / Cancel ? --Atlasowa (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please consider once again: Those numbers are not overly important. We should not aim to get as much thanks as possible but the thanks should be as appropriate as possible (this might also justify a drop in thanks).
 * I concur however that the wording is a little negative. Your suggestion sounds fine (I'd even cut out the "You" in the beginning, though). --Patrick87 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is excellent.
For quite some time before this, I had been hoping for some sort of "edit upvoting" feature, for the simple reason that there had been no real way to react to a good edit. This is awesome. I started using it immediately after its release, and I finally found the WP namespace page at which I can, well, thank you for it. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE WRATH  21:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it because it gives me a way to thank someone who reverts a vandalism. Not worth a trip to their talk page, but worth an "attaboy", and that's what this feature gives us. Also a quiet way of offering support to someone who makes a tough-but-IMO-correct call in closing a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Overthanking"
Is there a template to advise against this...? I mean, it's not meant to be merely a means of notification, and who wants to be getting thanked for posts every two minutes...? Muffled  Pocketed  15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert/undo thanks
I tried to work out from bugzilla but couldn't. Is there any progress or update on the possibility of undoing/reverting thanks? I just thanked a troll by accident. (Meant to thank the person who dealt with the troll.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, no progress at the moment. I'll ask about it. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

People with thanks notifications turned off should not be thankable
It's just a waste of people's time to send thanks to an "unthankable" user, so why even show the link for them? It could even lead to problems where somebody feels their thanking is being ignored, when in fact the receiving user merely doesn't see them. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This issue is tracked at T57401, with related discussion in T120753.
 * The solution you suggest of not showing the link, would mean (for example) that the servers need to check the user-preferences of everyone whose edits appear in a history page, and then hide the link for anyone who had turned off the feature - i.e. ...&limit=500&action=history would add another 500 server actions every time the page was loaded. That would increase the hardware resources needed, and slow down the page-load time for the end-user.
 * Other solutions are discussed in the phabricator tasks, but the task is not a high priority at the moment. However there are some research questions in there that I'll try to follow-up on.
 * Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Equinox, I'm a little confused about your suggestion that editors could feel ignored. Is there some sort of response expected (or even possible) after someone pushes the "Thank" button? A "You're welcome" button for example?  I had assumed that if an editor wanted a response or discussion he/she would have left a message on my talk page instead of using the "Thank" notification.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Doublethank
It's possible to "thank" an edit twice. I suspect that this is done inadvertently, because the thanker has no way of finding out which edits they've already sent a "thank" for. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=thanks&user=7severn7&page=User%3ARedrose64 Here are some] sent by one particular user to me. There is no way that anybody can tell from that list which edits they were for, but from my notifications, I can tell that those of 19:32, 24 November 2013 and 15:13, 25 November 2013 were both for (the other four were for different edits to the same article).

So: can I request that either (i) a diff link be added to the log; or (ii) a flag be set against an edit so that should an attempt be made to thank a second time, the user be informed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-opened the old bug for this (which I'd previously submitted following this bugreport in July, Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 4). Thanks for the report. :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * has thanked me a third time (08:43, 26 November 2013) for the same edit. I think I'll send a message back. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OMG! Got curious, searched your edit-history...  Best. Edit. Evah.  (!!!)  You can so totally add my personal thanks to the top of your thank-dogpile, Redrose, I mean, wowserooskie, you know?  :-)   &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose your name is Moon Unit Zappa? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm also experiencing the double thank issue, but other than that it's a great extension, so: thank you! :) Cheers, --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"NaNank pm"
Why does this text now display for me instead of "thank"? But the function otherwise works. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a misconverted time. NaN is a computer programmers' term meaning "Not a Number". "ank" I'm guessing is the third to fifth letters of "thank", and "pm" is what is often found in times represented using the 12-hour clock. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Kailash29792/common.js imports User:Bility/convert24hourtime.js. I guess that's the cause. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been removed, and the text now displays properly. So thank you guys. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a group of edits together
Would be nice if when looking at a group of edits by the same editor such as this the thank button would show up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I see which edit I was thanked for?
The title says it all. And while I'm sure it's right in front of my face, where is the link to the diff someone thanked you for? Kirk Leonard (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clicking anywhere on the notification itself (except for the username or page name at the bottom) will link you to the diff. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Quiddity (WMF). Kirk Leonard (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

archiving
I suggest we activate archiving on this talk page. It's getting long, and many sections are old by now. I'll be back in a week or so to see if anyone opposes. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cleanup ✅ CapnZapp (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Confused by the wording of the thanks confirmation prompt
At present when you click "thank" on a page's history it shows "(Send public thanks for this edit?  Yes   No)". I had been clicking "No" to send a person-to-person thanks rather than a public round of applause.

Today I was reading Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks and learned that when I select "no", the action is cancelled, and no message is sent. Oops... In looking at the thanks log for me it looks like I thanked people from March 2014 to November 2015. I suspect the wording changed to have the "no" confirmation in late 2015 or early 2016.

I believe it would be better if the confirmation message used "Cancel" rather than "No." For example, "(Send public thanks for this edit?  Yes   Cancel)". While writing this I was experimenting and hovered long enough to learn that the hovertip has "Cancel the thank you notification". The hovertip shows up after two seconds which is why I had not noticed it before.

The reason I was hovering was I was thinking that the word "thanks" in "Send public thanks for this edit?" should link to Notifications/Thanks so that people can learn about the feature. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. I do understand why the prompt was written that way - the devs wanted to be clear about the fact all your thanking goes public. But I do see how you could see the question as a choice between public and non-public thanks. Cancel is probably a good wording. CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add, this is a programmatic issue. It's not something us editors can implement ourselves. All we do here is suggest things for the dev team, if anyone is actively listening. CapnZapp (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are listening, I suggest replacing both "Yes" and "No" with "Send" and "Cancel". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was an older task to do exactly this (T159302). I've added a link to this discussion, to encourage/endorse that change. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It displays MediaWiki:Confirmable-yes and MediaWiki:Confirmable-no so local admins can change it but I suspect the messages are also used in other places where "Send" and "Cancel" may not make sense. The message names and translatewiki:MediaWiki:Confirmable-yes/qqq don't sound like it's only intended to confirm thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Change "What the feature is"
I suggest the title for this section be changed to "How this feature works". As is, it doesn't help to find how the feature works: I spent some time scrolling repeatedly before realizing that in this section was the information on how the feature works, which was what I was looking for. Thinker78 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, as a subheader to keep the "is/is not" in the ToC. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit the "we" stuff
This needs a copyedit to reword all of WMF's "we" stuff; this is the WP page about the feature, not a WMF statement about it, though it's is based on one and is incrementally diverging from it over time. In Wikipedia's voice, it comes across like some kind of on-Wiki faction lecturing patronizingly to less hip editors, or something. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Usage
An editor added the following section, probably in the heat of the moment. While I'm not opposed to usage guidance, we should probably phrase this in a less lecturing more friendly way. Dropping this here for your persusal (but removing it from the page itself): "This feature is also not something to use for edit after edit that you agreed with or appreciated. A single Thanks is sufficient for an entire series of related edits by the same person. Because it triggers a user notice with every use, Thanking numerous times in a row toward the same editor can be annoying or even alarming (e.g., it may at first look like some kind of dispute has broken out, due to a large number of notices appearing in rapid succession)."

CapnZapp (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really care how it's copyedited, as long as it gets the same basic points across.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Confused by the wording of the thanks confirmation prompt 2
See archive 2. This now appears to have been resolved. CapnZapp (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks button not showing up
? GABgab 03:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * it is broken, we've temporarily disabled it - see: Village_pump_(technical). — xaosflux  Talk 04:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... I thought that I'd broken it with some JavaScript that I'm using! I've been trying all sorts of ways to get it back. I'm glad I spotted this post. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 05:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reports. You can get updated by watching the Phabricator task. Now, developers are sleeping, a few hours are needed to fix that. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not working for me either. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been repaired. — xaosflux  Talk 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work again. Ericoides (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Logged in"
In the "How this feature works", the second paragraph says "Both you and the thanked user must be logged in." Is this meant to mean that both users must be registered? I've definitely received thanks when I was offline/asleep and seen them in the notification centre when I logged back in. – numbermaniac  11:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means they must be logged in at the respective times they make and receive the thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't as clear as it could be, so I've clarified the paragraph. Does the new phrasing answer your question,User:Numbermaniac? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it does, thank you CapnZapp! (by the way, I think you forgot to sign :) ) – numbermaniac  07:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks are not public(?)
Why does the confirmation prompt claim that thanks notifications are public when they’re only sent to the user who you are thanking? Inter qwark talk  contribs 02:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * because they are logged — xaosflux  Talk 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. I didn’t know that. Well, I stand corrected. I should have read the entire page. Thanks for informing me. Inter qwark talk  contribs 02:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Added "(?)" to subsection header to avoid confusion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Admittedly it's a tad confusing, as only the users are logged, not the edit/action for which they were thanked. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article explains that the log itself does not keep details of each edit, and also that your Notifications do. If any confusion persists after reading the article, please bring it to our attention - no article is so good it can't be improved! Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Thanked" reverts when using other computer
It looks like the thanked tag reverts back to unthanked when I switch from laptop to desktop or vice versa, which often happens several times a day. Is this normal/known/unavoidable, or am I missing something? What happens if I thank the same edit twice by accident? Does the second one not register? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Try it! and let us know :) CapnZapp (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure I have, inadvertently. How do I check? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Thanks" Confirmation
I've been enjoying the "Thanks" notifications. As a relatively new editor, I've found receiving "Thanks" to be encouraging; it's nice to know my contribution was appreciated. I also find myself using "Thanks" to express gratitude to people who have contributed to articles I'm invested in.

Although, I wonder: why are users asked to confirm their intention before a "Thank" is sent? Perhaps this is related to a constraint of Echo that I am not yet aware of?

For context: the project page states, "Thanks is that quick way to say "thanks" for an edit." This leads me to think of the feature [and its use] as a lightweight interaction, but the added confirmation steps strikes me as counter to this.

Stussll (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear ,
 * I’m glad you find the Thanks feature both encouraging to yourself and useful in your appreciation of other editors’ contributions. I simply don’t know the reason behind the implementation of a two-step process, other than it being perhaps another manifestation of the usual approach of enabling the user to change his/her mind before committing to completing the Thanks process. Maybe someone else knows for sure.
 * In any case, keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions!
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Please don’t forget to sign your posts, by entering four tildes at the end. I’ll create a retroactive signature for you this time, from the view history details.
 * Essentially, the confirmation step was added because the "thank" links are located directly after the "undo" links, which had previously been the last link in that line (in history pages and diff pages). I.e. Editors who were accustomed to the older layout would occasionally 'thank' a vandal that they had meant to revert, which was frustrating. (and yes, it's counter to the intended lightweight nature of the feature. So it goes.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear ,
 * Very many thanks for elucidating the reason why the Thanks button was designed as a two-step confirmation process; your explanation makes abundant sense. Thank you for taking the time to provide it.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * my signature...yikes - thank you for catching this! ah, understood – thank you for sharing this context. Your response helped me locate the conversation where this topic seems to have been originally discussed: Thanks feature update :)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stussll (talk • contribs) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sending Thanks for creating an article
Hi, you added this section, but I don't understand why. The first revision of a page is already thankable from the history page itself - example (if the editor has an account and isn't a bot). Or am I missing/forgetting something? Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, reverting. w umbolo   ^^^  21:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Feature request
This is a cool feature. Sometimes, I also want to communicate a short thought to the recipient, but it's not important enough to bother (me or them) creating a new section on their talk page or sending them an email (often unavailable anyway). Since there is already a separate step to confirm the thanks, how about adding a text box to that step, the contents of which would be added to the notification gadget and email? This doesn't add any weight to the thanker's process if they don't use it, yet provides a solution to fill this gap. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I see your point, we should be very wary of allowing editors to send messages with no clear and immediate way of responding. Compare edit summaries, where it can be a source of irritation when somebody communicates with you (=saying something you have a reply to). They could easily make the comment with no extra effort, but you need to start a whole talk page section to respond (contrast edit wars held through edit summaries); you are given the labor of opening the channel as it were (on an article's talk page in the case of an edit summary; on that user's talk page in the case of a thank you message). In short: I believe that any time you want to give thanks and only thanks, this feature is there for you. But any time you want to say more than thanks, you should be encouraged to go through normal channels (since by opening a talk page section you do the work of "opening the channel" which actually invites a response). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

WMF Projects: availability vs usage
Thanks for the edit, but I wasn't really asking about availability. I was, or rather, meant to ask On what Wikipedias are Thanks enabled and in use? CapnZapp (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an existing collection of that data. If you have a significant use-case for the data, then I suggest filing a request on phabricator (tag it with #thanks and #product-analytics) explaining what you want it for (in order to help the people who might spend time working on it, to understand the urgency level in relation to the many other existing requests). Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the answer is no. Okay CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rewritten. Our articles are not limited by technical restraints. Specifically, we don't suppress cleanup tags merely because details aren't readily available. CapnZapp (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank button should link to this help page
I am relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I am not sure this is the best place to post this suggestion. I was reading elsewhere about the thank button and I wanted to try it on a recent edit I wanted to acknowledge. First, it confused me the "Publicly send thanks?" that appeared. It wasn't clear to me whether my thanks had been sent already and if it was asking me if I wanted to publicly thank the editor on top of that, or if publicly thanking was the only way to go. So I decided to look for some help, but I couldn't find anything in Spanish (I'm native Spanish speaker); until I finally came across with this article which answered all my questions. The browsing was OK for me, but I think it may discourage some users. My suggestion, then, would be: could a "more info" link be added to the "Publicly send thanks?" message pointing to this help page? Please, let me know if I should be posting this suggestion somewhere else instead. Thank you all for your great work! --Diegodlh (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, we would need an admin to edit MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation2. I will open an edit request if there is consensus. Danski454 (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please check the message doesn't get too long first, or that the link confuses other people as to where to actually click: the UI is already not ideal since "Thank" and "Cancel" should really be buttons (=they execute commands as opposed to sending you somewhere the way links usually work). CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree it's better to link to a help page than trying to construct the perfect succinct message - there will never be a single wording that everybody worldwide will understand perfectly. I just caution against implementing a series of quick little fixes where you end up losing sight on the larger picture; especially during summer time when fewer people might have eyes on this page. Cheers and good luck CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The message would probably be: Publicly send thanks? (more info) so it won't be too long. Danski454 (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer more simple "what's this?" or "help" to "more info". Nardog (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the help page is for the entire Thanks fuction, not merely to answer questions on "publicly". Shouldn't the help link be present already close to the initial "Thank" text? One alternative might be to make the tooltip a hyperlink to this help page? Maybe then replacing the current tooltip text with "What's this?" CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for engaging in this conversation. I feel that placing the help link next to the initial "thank" text may overload the history page, especially for those not interested in using the Thanks function. On the other hand, I'm not sure how a hyperlink could be embedded in the tooltip. In my case, the tooltip closes as soon as I leave the "thank" link/button. Merging Danski454 and Nardog suggestions, I think a good option may be: Publicly send thanks? /|Thank /|Cancel What's this, or simply: Publicly send thanks? /|Thank /|Cancel Help, to keep all links/buttons one-word long. I think placing the What's this/more info/Help link at the end would prevent focus on the Thank function itself from being lost. --Diegodlh (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Using Help as the link text would be fine, however the link can only go before the tank and cancel buttons unless we get a dev to change the interface with a patch. Danski454 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tooltips may only be plain text, with no markup of any kind; this is because they are generated from the  attribute of a HTML tag. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are four messages: MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation2, MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation-special-rev, MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation-special-log, MediaWiki:Flow-thanks-confirmation-special (may currently be unused). I suggest adding "(help)" before the question mark, e.g. "Publicly send thanks (help)?". This seems unobtrusive and the only options after the question are the replies. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Nardog (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed Danski454 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me! --Diegodlh (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it, if we're going to request an interface edit, can we also remove "publicly"? It doesn't reflect the reality nearly well, and since there's no pithy way to describe "whom you thanked is visible to others but not which edit or which article, except to admins, and it won't even be on the article history or diff page or anyone's watchlist", we might as well just do away with it. Nardog (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just about to make the same point. A few years ago, a new joiner wanted to thank me for my initial help with her first steps as an editor, but changed her mind because she thought that “publicly” meant that tens of millions of other registered editors were going to see what she’d hoped would be a simple, private signal of personal appreciation. I hope this helped a little. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins cannot see which edit or action the thanks relate to. As for the word "Publicly", see Help talk:Notifications/Thanks/Archive 1 and most subsequent threads in that archive; also Help talk:Notifications/Thanks/Archive 2. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to acknowledge seeing your reply, above; thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that the main reason why I thought that a link to this help page may be useful was this "publicly" in the confirmation message, as written in my first message in this thread. I think that if the confirmation message were simply a "Send thanks? Thank Cancel" I wouldn't have hesitated as to what it meant. But I thought the discussion around the "publicly" had been settled, and hence my suggestion to link to this page instead. I'm quite new around here and I'm still trying to understand how things work, but if you think the "publicly" is no longer needed, then I would say a link to this help page may be needless then (I don't see why linking to a help page for the Thanks button and not for the Undo button, for example, as long as what these buttons do is clear -which I think it is not currently the case with the Thank button). Cheers! --Diegodlh (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The supplied link to Phabricator leads to the discussion that instigated the thanks-is-public phrasing. As you can see, the notion that everything on Wikipedia is public, and that Thanks isn't more public than other actions, is not shared by everyone. If it is true that only the recipient and not even admins can sleuth out the exact edit the thanks was for, that point was not made during the initial bug report; maybe start that process over again? Specifically, to make the point that, no, while the act of thanking is logged and thus you can find out whether a user is a prolific thanker or not using the service much at all, you can't find out the details, so is the thank you really public then? I'm getting the impression the initial bug reporter views Thanks as a "personal message", but the only content of the message is a) who you thanked, and b) for what edit. You cannot add c) a personalized greeting or anything like that. Thus you can argue this message is indeed personal. The analogy would be seeing the office mail clerk coming to your cubicle and emptying your Outbox - you can see if you send messages and how many, but you don't know the recipients or the contents. Isn't that private enough for us to drop the "Publicly"? Apparently, the developers over at Phabricator weren't too keen on having that discussion, so they merely acquiesced. Which, of course, we too can do - which, in turn, would lead us to then instead add the Help link as an explanation. CapnZapp (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that means it's even less public than I thought then. I'm sure replacing it with a help link will greatly reduce confusion, and perhaps even increase the overall use of the feature. The confusing wording was all the reason I came to this page and began watching it after all.
 * (Your response came as somewhat of a surprise to me, because I know an editor who was blocked for "thanking" someone who he had dispute with and had just retired, which was construed as passive-aggressive incivility. So the admin who blocked him did so without a means to confirm it was indeed thanks to the edit declaring retirement?) Nardog (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, my point wasn't to argue for a help button. My point was maybe first get to the bottom of whether we need the word "publicly". If our consensus is that the function is "private enough" to remove it (and that people clamouring for it maybe aren't well-informed enough), then maybe that impacts the need for a help function, since so far it seems to me the main impetus for adding a help button is because people don't understand the hows and whys of that word! Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your incivility case, sorry, without any details (and I don't want any!) I choose to not comment, and I don't think it would be worthwhile to speculate in that direction regardless. CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Redrose64. Nardog (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
So how about a change like this? Nardog (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At this stage, my only comment is a suggestion to solicit a wider range of replies. Since this needs to be implemented by devs preparing a solid case will save time. Maybe we can ping the original Phabricator users, or ask for comments over at an appropriate venue (Teahouse?). CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But can't it be done simply by interface editors editing the MediaWiki pages? Or would they be overwritten each time MediaWiki is updated or something? Nardog (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any sysop can edit the interface pages to implement this, and it will not be affected by updates. Developer intervention is only needed if the link were to come after the    links (as with one of the other proposals) or to apply the change on all wikis. Danski454 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - The proposed pop-up message will be less confusing without the word 'publicly', and the help link will provide clarification of the purpose of the thank button to those editors using it for the first time. Thank you for making this proposal. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please replace the content of each message as proposed in the table above. See the entire thread (H2) for consensus (if it's too small, simply decline this and we shall move this to WP:VPR). Nardog (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ first one I tested on testwiki (MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation2) verified that these inline insert tips do not support adding wiki-links.  You would need to file a phabricator ticket to add this software functionality for the thanks system first. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want a sub-set of this done, please very explicitly list out below the changes that you do want. — xaosflux  Talk 02:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Xaosflux. I do not think we should settle for a "subset" of Nardog's proposal, so consider this ticket closed and we'll open another one in that case. To User:Nardog, we're back at my suggestion to ask for a wider set of opinions before going forward with a phabricator ticket. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xaosflux. I concur with CapnZapp, a partial implementation is probably not a good idea.
 * Now I'm wondering, if it requires changes to the software, wouldn't it make more sense to move this help page to the MediaWiki site or Meta-Wiki altogether? Nardog (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – it already exists: mw:Help:Notifications/Thanks. So we may have an interface message that allows linking to a local page, much like the Help link at the right top of many special pages like Watchlist and Contributions (like these). Nardog (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Submitted T229168. Nardog (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Phabricator response
Okay so we have the growth team's response: "This idea makes sense to the Growth-Team, however we do not have any research saying this will be a positive improvement. Volunteers are welcome to work on this but we will not be able to support any work on this due to the other work we are prioritizing at this time." CapnZapp (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"un-thanking"
I just noted it it never stated outright that you can't regret/take back a thanks once given out. On the assumption you can't, I'm rectifying this. CapnZapp (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Limit on the amount of thanks
Is there a limit on how many thanks I could give during a lifetime with one account? Thanks. <span style="border-radius:20px;background:#00785D;padding:0 9px;font-family:微软雅黑;color:white;display:inline-block"> [[User:Wei4Green| ]] ·  唯绿  远大  21:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, if you live for 60 more years you will be limited to about 315 million thanks ;) — xaosflux  Talk 23:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What a curious question, what leads you to ask? Stussll (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I am worried that I won't be able to give thanks anymore, just like there's a limit on likes on YouTube. <span style="border:solid 2px;border-radius:6px;font-family:微软雅黑;color:#00785D;display:inline-block"> User:Wei4Green| ]]''' · 唯绿远大 23:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen it and xaosflux was too subtle, Help:Notifications/Thanks says: "You can't thank more than ten people in a minute. This limitation is intended to prevent abuse (spamming thanks)." Ten per minute for 60 years is 315 million. See also mw:Extension:Thanks. The only change from the default in Wikimedia wikis is for new users in the Polish Wikipedia on request at T169268. https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt says:

'+plwiki' => [ // Limit to 3 per day for new users (T169268) 'thanks-notification' => [ 'newbie' => [ 3, 86400 ], ],	]
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The answer is no, there is no life-time limit on Wikipedia thanks, User:Wei4Green.

(While the above discussion does provide an answer it is hidden by clutter and might be hard to parse for non-native English speakers). Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * got it, that makes sense. And thanks for the info., User:PrimeHunter.

How to thank for a review?
After creating a new article, other editors can formally review them. I can't see the review in the history, how can we thank reviewers? --Signimu (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not all action types (including page triage / 'review') are able to be "thanked". You can always leave the person a talk page message. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See also T60485 for a more technical reason on that one. — xaosflux  Talk 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's unfortunate Thank you for the details! --Signimu (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of talk pages (instead of giving a man a fish, teach everybody how to fish; meaning instead of answering questions to individual editors, improve the associated article to answer the question for everybody) I've boiled down the gist of this discussion to a bullet point on the page itself. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist
""Thank" links are not part of watchlists or recent-changes." Why not? I fiddled with my preferences yesterday and now I can see diffs from my watchlist (nav popups I think), it would be cool if I could thank editors for helpful edits, especially talkpage replies/pings to me that I don't need to reply to. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have enabled WP:POPUPS, you can hover over any "diff" link to see the edit, and then select "send thanks" from the popups action menu. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , hey, thanks, found it; turns out the bluelinks at the top of the popup window constitute a menu bar.
 * Soooo cool! Thanks again! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Where do Thanks live in the database?
If I were to want to research/analyze them? Theredproject (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See mw:Extension:Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks. I will try this. --Theredproject (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes
Thank you for your good faith edits, and !

However, I feel we should first ask ourselves the following question: Should we encourage user boxes on Thanks?

At present we have edits advertising user boxes made by the editors that have created each user box. What does the implementing team say (assuming they watch this talk page)? What do you say?

Do note: I am not opposing the existence of the user boxes. I am questioning whether it is in line with the design goals for the Thanks implementation to encourage their use. I would suggest a happy medium where we simply note them in a less prominent way (and avoid showcasing them on the page itself). That is, linking to them, not using them on page.

I look forward to your input, CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Here's a link to the diff which includes the templates in question)
 * I personally concur with the hesitation that CapnZapp raises. I totally understand the desire to demonstrate the appreciation we've sent and received (because it can be a positive morale-boosting micro-feature), but I worry that it could eventually end up accidentally subverting the overall goal of the feature (to be a really lightweight way to quickly send appreciation, with minimal effort for the sender and minimal distraction for the receiver). The logs were intended purely as a way to investigate any abuse, and not to create a running public tally. If it turns into something that people keep a close eye on, then it has a danger of becoming more 'important' than it ever ought to be (e.g. being referenced in discussions/rfcs/etc). Hope that makes sense and helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hello everyone, it appears that the ping failed, but I still managed to find this discussion so no problem. Before anything I would like to request the opinion of who is the very kind and polite long-term editor that created the userboxes (see here), and actually thanked me for including them in the help page. Let the blame fall on *me* if adding the userboxes was against policy. But we really should hear from Pdebee first and  as well since he also contributed with an alternative userbox design. As for me, I proudly stand by my edit as it is 100% in line with the spirit and purpose of the Kindness Campaign. I hope we can restore the userboxes to the help page as soon as possible. Thank you.   History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * adding the userboxes was against policy Well, I hope you see I made no such allegations. Again, thanks for your good faith edit, and I too hope we can arrive at an amicable solution. I won't revert again, since I am not personally opposing you - I just wish the matter to be discussed before implementation. Best, CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. If someone can tell me what I did wrong (in regards with my use of the u template), feel free to pop over to my talk to tell me. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries and let me take this opportunity to invite you, Sdkb, Quiddity, and everyone else commenting in this talk page to sign the rolls of the Kindness Campaign, because we could really use your support too! Cordially,   History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  10:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean, you didn't sign it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those are valid concerns, and I'm not personally planning to use the box unless the logs get improved to note the specific edits that were being thanked for. That said, I don't think that people using the box will make thanks into something as heavy as barnstars. We're also talking about userspace, where a very wide amount of latitude is typically granted to editors; noting the boxes on this help page isn't necessarily an endorsement so much as just a "hey, you might like to know about this". I'd hope that at least a "see also" link to the boxes could be included. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To:, , and . Dear Colleagues,  In response to History DMZ's request for me to comment, I'd say this is another opportunity for our community to face the challenge of reconciling differing points of view. Userboxes are a fun component of Wikipedia and I fully admit to having derived a great deal of almost puerile enjoyment  in experimenting with them in my earlier days here. Of course, like everything else, they are open to being misused. I created these two simply to help advertise the Kindness campaign and assist in enabling it to gain traction in the community. As for advertising their existence on this page, we could consider precedent: some Wikiprojects have done so: the Typo Team and the Guild of Copy Editors are two with which I am familiar, and I am sure there must be many other projects that have chosen not to display or even create project-based userboxes. In the end, I would still aim to help advertise the Kindness campaign in any way we can and some userboxes may well contribute to that but, in the final analysis, what matters is how we apply kindness in everything we do, and I will fully respect and support whatever consensus is reached here. I hope this helped. Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 09:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my earlier comment: I definitely don't object to the existence of the userboxes, or even their inclusion on this project page. I just wanted to make sure everyone understands the potential drawbacks, as well as the obvious benefits. :) HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous
I'd like to be able to thank anonymous users for their contributions. Yes, it's possible they won't see it, but it's also possible they will, and that might help encourage someone to create an account.--~TPW 12:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's also possible random people will see it. There is a request at T63022. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While I don't think this space counts for whether this will be implemented or not, I'd like to thank User:PrimeHunter for the link; it makes it clear that a major stumbling block is the inability for thanks to work the same for anon users ("ip editors") than registered users ("named editors"). I agree the workaround to have thanks automatically posted to the anon's talk page is not uncontroversial. CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * there is an easy solution for when you want to thank anons, User:True Pagan Warrior: Add  to the user's talk page. (Maybe add this to documentation?) CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Quantification?
Apologies if this has been already addressed.

I personally don't mind userboxes, they're fun and great for spirit (I've benefited in the past :] )

What are these thanks notifications doing in the background? I came to this page to figure it out because of how many editors I had been thanking. They'd certainly deserved thanks for their lovely edits, but I'd like to know how it reflects on their user-ship and if it is important in any quantifiable way. Should a user concern themselves about this? If not, that might be better publicized to users! I've been a user quite a while and have no idea how it would work after searching this metapage. Yes, the "what this is" and "what this isn't" sections describe the wiki functionalities apparent to a given user, but what about those quantifiables (even for a userbox!), which a bot or mod might, could, or will pick up on?

Could there be a definitive answer on the page itself? The sections in Help:Notifications/Thanks don't specifically answer these questions and leave much to be desired for a new user. A simple note on these meta effects or lack thereof would be helpful!

I personally don't care, but think such a specific discussion would be helpful given the site-wide implementation! :) --  Marx01  Tell me about it 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks (except the thanked edit) are publicly visible at Special:Log/thanks but I haven't heard of any feature or user who used the log for anything. I just consider thanks a private appreciation which happens to leave a partial public log nobody cares about. It's possible somebody looks up how many thanks a user is getting but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have thanked your edit if you want to be reminded how it looks to the recipient. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer "how many editors I had been thanking" you can, obviously, put your name in the "performer" parameter of the thanks log, and then count them manually. Alternatively, you can, click "edit count" at the bottom of your "User contributions" page - this shows, under "Actions" that you have issued 13 thanks, and if you click on the blue 13, it produces the list. That page does not, however, tell you haw many thanks you have received. As for what are they used for, I seem to recall some editors referring to them at WP:RFA discussions, as a way of assessing a candidate, but I can't find an example of that. - Arjayay (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! I think this clears it up. :) -- Marx01  Tell me about it 21:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Enable in a non English Wikipedia
Hi. This feature seems unavailable in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Can someone point me to where it can be enabled, please? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just thanked your latest edit on your Portuguese user talk page pt:User Talk:Fgnievinski, so it seems to work just fine :) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can confirm my thanks is confirmed as having been sent when I watch the history of this page ("agradecimento enviado"). CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unavailable on mobile?
Hi. It seems the thank-you link is unavailable on mobile? See, for example: fgnievinski (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia expects users to realize the mobile experience is a different - mostly reduced - experience overall. As opposed to pointing out each and every change and omission, I mean. (See WP:DEVICES)
 * My guess is that Wikipedia differs from most other sites nowadays in that most serious editing is still done in front of a full-size screen and keyboard, that is, by users of desktop web browsers. Of course if we reach a consensus it's worthwhile to point out differences desktop vs mobile even here at Thanks, that's cool too. CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about enabling the "thank-you" link at least for the mobile advanced mode? fgnievinski (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible drawback
THANKS are, from the perspective of a talk page discussion, invisible.

That is, you can lose out on resolution - how and when a discussion ends - if participants decide to use THANKS to convey messages of acceptance, acknowledgement or gratitude. It can make a discussion appear hanging, compared to a Wikimedia system without Thanks enabled. (In much the same manner if a talk page participant decides to engage on your own talk page instead of the article talk page hosting the bulk of the discussion). The reason of course is that participants of the discussion (as well as readers of old talk page discussions) don't have an easy (or even reasonably hard) way of "getting the whole picture", including every Wiki-hosted interaction between discussion members.

Contrast to a hypothetical Wikimedia system that automatically inserts notifications in the discussion, for instance: User Bob thanked User Sue at 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw this out there. CapnZapp (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Define "only once"
The help page explains that you can only thank a person once for a specific edit. But is this "you" "you specifically" or "one"? I'd like to know if multiple users can thank someone for one edit. I.e., will only the first "Thanks" be sent to the recipient, or can the recipient be thanked for one edit by multiple users? The text does not make this clear. Digital Brains (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Others can thank for the same edit. I'm surprised anyone would consider otherwise. I don't think it needs to be spelled out. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I've always only ever been thanked by a single user, even though different edits to the same article received thanks from different stalwarts of those articles. I'd consider the feature that you can only be thanked once a fine feature, to reduce clutter, to reduce noise. After all, the person sending thanks can't see if thanks had already been sent! I'd be more reluctant to pile on when others have already shown appreciation. I was simply curious if this had indeed been implemented that way, as I'd never received thanks twice. I'm a bit surprised you are surprised! :-D Thanks for answering though! Digital Brains (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the fact that gratitude had already been expressed factors into the decision whether you will also express gratitude for something. Just imagine everybody on Wikipedia or on a mailing list or forum who thinks something is a worthwhile addition adding a "Thank you" note to someones talk page or the forum discussion! You see thousands of "Thank you"s already and yet you think "I think this was good as well, lemme add thanks too!". That'd be weird. The only real difference I see with this "Thanks" feature here is that instead of everybody seeing the flood of thank yous, it's only visible to the recipient. Digital Brains (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is flooded to a degree where it becomes annoying. The most thanks I have received for the same edit is four. Somebody recently thanked me four times for making the same edit on four articles. That seemed a bit over the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The text reads You can only thank someone for a given edit once. This is clearly directed to you who reads the article. You, the reader, can only thank someone for a given edit once. But all other Wikipedia visitors can also read our article, and we tell them that they too can only thank someone for a given edit once. In fact, you and them can all thank someone for a given edit (but only once each). Directing instructional text directly to the reader is a good thing. It is clear and avoids the passive voice. In short, no I do not believe any clarification is necessary here. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact you can't see if others have thanked a user for the edit you are about to thank him or her for, is, I think, a good thing. The overall ethos of the implementation is to work hard to avoid popularity contests, so consider it a feature not a bug. I hope we can agree that the small "risk" of getting "too many" thanks is not exactly a huge problem ;) and definitely a much smaller issue than how people get worked up over "likes" on youtube videos or facebook posts. CapnZapp (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So I can agree the text You can only thank someone for a given edit once. is actually not ambiguous, I guess I just picked it because it was the thing closest to what I actually wanted to know. That still does not answer the question: should we make explicit that multiple people can thank an editor for a single edit? I can also live with that not being in the text; my own curiosity is satisfied and if I'm that remarkable unique specimen who is the only one interested in this, soit. I was merely arguing why I was surprised that was surprised somebody could come up with this. When other people can see gratitude expressed by others, there is a natural limiting mechanism in normal social behaviour: when somebody has already been thanked, perhaps even multiple times, the stream of thanks dries up. This natural limiting mechanism is not in place here: people can't see gratitude already expressed. So I wondered whether an alternative limiting mechanism had been placed on it. I don't see what's so surprising about this train of thought.
 * Note that in online conversation people already exhibit really different social behaviour than face-to-face: where face-to-face it would often be odd for you not to thank someone for clarifying something or contributing something useful, online we're much more inclined to omit this courtesy. So a limiting mechanism is probably not needed. I just wondered if there was one, that's all. I agree with your assessment, hiding thanks to avoid popularity contests is probably the best thing to do.
 * Now all that remains for me is to write such a great contribution to Wikipedia that I will also be thanked for it four times just like ! ;-) Thanks people for your contributions to this discussion. Digital Brains (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, cheers. Second: I'm afraid I share Prime's surprise. Phrase "multiple people can thank an editor for a single edit" the other way 'round, and you should see how unreasonable the alternative would be: "once someone else has thanked a user for a given edit, you can no longer thank him or her for that same edit". Talk about a double-take! Can I hope you are able to see it from our point of view now, that the very notion the system might be inexplicably constrained for no good reason, so we need to explain "no, that's not actually the case" feels mostly perplexing? Again best regards and have a nice day! CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I had already made clear why I thought some limiting mechanism might be reasonable since the usual limiting mechanism of social behaviour is missing. Such a mechanism might cut off at 1, 5 or 10, whatever. You are literally now asking me to consider it reasonable that my train of thought is "mostly perplexing", even after I've explained it. There's a clear difference between being surprised because you did not think the same as someone else, and asserting that their reasoning is perplexing when it's explained to you. The former is fine, but with the latter you're basically asking me to assert that I'm being absurd. I'm sure you did not intend for it to come across that way, but I do not like the direction this discussion has taken, and I will now step away and go do something more fun. It was never important at any point. Digital Brains (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't thank more than ten people in a minute.
This from details and limitations. My question: is it really ten people? Isn't it ten thanks?

That is, if you cannot thank eleven edits made by eleven people, but you CAN thank eleven edits made by the SAME editor, then fair enough.

But I suspect the limit is on making ten thanks full stop.

And so I've tagged the statement. If we get confirmation you cannot make more than ten thanks in a minute regardless of the recipient(s) we can edit the statement. CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at the code, it seems ten edits rather than ten people. Nardog (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tested it's a total with alternative accounts and updated the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ty CapnZapp (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanking thanks
Should a mention of be added? Thank you.&#8213; Qwerfjkl &#124;&#9993;  20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a template to thank for the thanks, User:Redrose64 CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As such I would hesitate adding it to the help page. After all, we've had "A "thanks for the thanks" response is not needed! for eight years now . I don't think there's anything wrong with the template per se but I would hesitate promoting it actively (by linking to the Because you thanked me template) unless we first reach a consensus on whether we want to at least partially revert User:Quiddity's edit. CapnZapp (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)