I'm beginning to regret supporting this idea. Article feedback isn't available on mobile!? I don't like that. I'm just saying, this should really be available on mobile view. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 00:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Agree - It should be in the mobile view too. Justjourney (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've now enabled article feedback on mobile as well! | violine1101 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- (as per usual, might take a bit to show up everywhere) | violine1101 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yay, it's showing up!! -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 00:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I've now tweaked the position slightly; it's now next to the language button. If you're logged out, it's replacing the "watch" icon and has an additional label "Feedback". | violine1101 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ooh, that's pretty good! Nice job on that. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 00:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
FeedbackBot being anonymous is being abused
[edit source]People are using the FeedbackBot to put the n-word in talk pages anonymously. Also, are users/IPs that were blocked allowed to or not allowed to use the feedback? 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the answer to this is yes, but I wanted to make sure. If an editor removes feedback from a talk page for vandalism or violating talk page guidelines, is it automatically removed from List of unresolved feedback on this page and Category:Pages with unresolved feedback? Rampage455 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes! GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dianliang233. Arina (she/her) 15:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Gaz Lloyd GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The feedback bot signature is written two times. Outrowed (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Fixed - Im Wired In (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Can't share feedback on non-mainspace articles
[edit source]You can't share feedback on tutorials, dungeons articles, legends articles, and other non-mainspace articles. You should be able to share feedback on non-mainspace articles. MeowMeow123 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Fixed -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thx! MeowMeow123 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, but... Should the feedback table be split to allow for easy tracking of spinoff feedback? I myself am an editor interested in Legends and secondarily Dungeons, while others don't play those games. It'd be good to be able to simply scroll to an alternate table instead of scrolling through the whole list of feedback, especially for editors like me, interested in a specific namespace. Should the table be split? Do we even need to track spinoff feedback? Is there an alternate solution to this? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Unresolved article feedback from March-May
[edit source]What do we do with them? 2601:981:4401:1CC0:6D20:7DED:F0BB:9C4C 13:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- We do the same as we do with all the other ones. Look at 'em and see if there's any we can help with! -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 15:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- What is article feedback? I have never heard of such a thing before. 98.235.155.81 21:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- See the page this talk page is for... -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 22:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I just read it and I have to say it is a really cool feature to have on the wiki. Would be nice if Wikipedia also had the same thing, like that too as I once in a while edit that site too. 98.235.155.81 09:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- There also appears to be unresolved feedback from March-October. 71.58.85.73 14:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Your point? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- See the page for unresolved article feedback. 71.58.85.73 14:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see those. I repeat, what is your point? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- That is my point. 71.58.85.73 14:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- So you're saying there's unresolved feedback, and that's all. Well that's not very helpful, and certainly isn't what you're calling a point. But if you have nothing else to say, we can be done with this immediate discussion. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry, my point actually is that for some strange reason there are many feedbacks given in March-October and none of them have been resolved, I apologize if I have bothered you in the sense of points and stuff, but I just am getting confused why there are so much unresolved feedback. 71.58.85.73 13:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Please protect this page. --Whydeletemyaccs (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why? There is literally no reason to apart from it being a wiki page, which really isn't a valid reason to protect anything. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 23:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most MCW pages, except MCW:Sandbox, are protected. The only thing they shouldn't protect is the purge thing. --Whydeletemyaccs (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- ...except if an IP is abusing the purge feature. --Whydeletemyaccs (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most of them. Because they're high traffic pages and may have been vandalized before. But that really doesn't mean this page has to be protected. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 00:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Cannot see Share article feedback button 186.50.246.61 16:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- You can just leave a talk page comment instead if the feedback button won't load. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot, and I mean a lot, of feedback being resolved just for inactivity, and I'm not sure this is a great idea. They're not resolved, they're just arbitrarily dismissed. It's not like these issues stop mattering because four months have passed, now even fewer people are gonna know to help. This practice isn't even explained on the page, there's no real benefit here. Realshow19 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Add policy regarding feedback that has not been actioned upon within a considerable amount of time
[edit source]Latest comment: 17 March12 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Policy proposal has been withdrawn by proposer. Apparently, some people can't read. The description is the reason why I proposed such a policy and to the others, its going in one ear and out the other.
BDJP – Undated comment added at 18:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~
I propose to add a policy regarding article feedback, as there have been numerous examples of feedback that has remained unresolved for nearly six months to a year at this point. This would be added to the "Creating and resolving feedback" section, which would read as follows:
“
Feedback that has not been resolved within six months can be automatically resolved, provided that an explanation is given (for example: "This feedback is resolved as no action has been taken regarding the feedback over the course of six months."
„
I recently had to go through "Pages with unresolved feedback" category and clear out feedback that has not been resolved within that timeframe, and some on the cusp of hitting that timeframe, which is why this proposal is being made. BDJP (t|c) 18:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose. Why should this be added? You've not given any reason for it. What affect does this have other than making the unresolved feedback list completely useless? Please do not make a proposal for something after you do it, you even closed another piece of feedback using this proposed policy as reasoning after putting the proposal up. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
18:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- My reasoning is that feedback should be resolved if it has not been actioned upon within six months to a year after it was created. I am not trying to make the unresolved feedback list useless. It is a , and as such, should be actioned upon. BDJP (t|c) 18:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's not a reason, that's just a description of what your proposal is. Why should it be resolved automatically? - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
18:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- The description is the reason. BDJP (t|c) 18:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- No it's not. Give me a reason for why feedback should be automatically resolved after some time. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
18:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose. Just because it's old doesn't suddenly make it dismissable. Multiple feedbacks I was subscribed to that were marked as resolved, are not actually resolved. Its like putting a rug over a crack in the floor or something like that. The issue still exists on the article, and now it's significantly harder to figure out which articles have these issues, as people submitting feebdack most likely dont know how to add maintenance templates to articles. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
18:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well, at the very least, this basically proves that the feature regarding article feedback is useless, as the majority of feedback that was in the category did not get actioned upon quickly. I would rather clear out the category, per my reply to Harristic, than have it be bloated. BDJP (t|c) 18:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I dont believe its useless, I think the issue is that like no editors actually look at it, thus nothing happens. We need to encourage more editors to look at the list of unresolved feedback. I do, and fix things when I can, but a ton of the issues are Java Edition issues, technical things, pages needing renders, or other things that I myself cant help with. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
18:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- "there have been numerous examples of feedback that has remained unresolved for nearly six months to a year at this point" -- So what? How exactly is this a problem? How is it bothering anyone (other than you)? How exactly would it be a benefit to the wiki to automatically "resolve" outstanding issues just because they have been around for a while? 👁 Image
Strong Oppose. --Mitsos (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose. You can't just say something is resolved when it in fact is not resolved. 👁 Image
Sightnado t | c 18:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
