On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, S Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> bjor...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > I personally find the topic history page[4] to be horrendous, both ugly
> > and nearly unusable.
> >
> We're going to revise topic history.
>
>
>
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
>
> I personally find the topic history page[4] to be horrendous, both ugly
> and nearly unusable.
>
We're going to revise topic history.
> Yes, I'm probably atypical in that I like reading wikitext diffs for
> discussion pages.
You
On 9 Jun 2014, at 20:58, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:52:44 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra
> wrote:
>
>> In this case, which post are you replying to in flow when you reply to
>> multiple people? In mediawiki you sort of work around the issue, and it
>> sort of works because you
>
> * User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user
talk
> pages? No, we don't.
>
> * Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 replies at most.
The
I think you mean on average. There are outliers here, and they aren't that
uncommon. That said i agree that in gene
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
> * User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user
> talk pages? No, we don't.
>
{{citation needed}}
I suspect this is just like the point below.
> * Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 replies at most.
>
On 10 June 2014 15:34, Quim Gil wrote:
> * User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user talk
> pages? No, we don't.
And yet this is a popular use for LQT on LQT-using wikis, so will need
to be covered by Flow.
> * Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 re
So, LiquidThreads. :)
If most of the discussion goes around tree structure discussions, and how
some advanced users find wikitext's free form to be an advantage, maybe we
can agree on certain points based on where exactly is LiquidThreads being
used.
* User talk pages. Do we need multithread tre
On Jun 10, 2014 9:33 AM, "Erik Moeller" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
>
> > FWIW, for me as a power user who watches many discussions
simultaneously on
> > multiple wikis, a unified watchlist and more refined tools for watchlist
> > management are among the features at
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Thomas Gries wrote:
>
> Watchlist and (fine-granular definable) E-Mail-Notifications are very
> important - for my daily work.
> LiquidThreads and Echo (if you opt-in to mail) offer that (using the
> MediaWiki UserMailer functions).
>
> Does Flow also offer E-Mai
Am 10.06.2014 09:33, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
FWIW, for me as a power user who watches many discussions simultaneously on
multiple wikis, a unified watchlist and more refined tools for watchlist
management are among the features at the top of my deve
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
> FWIW, for me as a power user who watches many discussions simultaneously on
> multiple wikis, a unified watchlist and more refined tools for watchlist
> management are among the features at the top of my development wish list.
*nod* The watchlist
FWIW, for me as a power user who watches many discussions simultaneously on
multiple wikis, a unified watchlist and more refined tools for watchlist
management are among the features at the top of my development wish list.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Risker wrote:
> This. Nobody, but nobody, asked the WMF to create this sort of system, and
> it is a rather quixotic goal given that each project has its own set
> of workflows.
Hey Anne,
We're of course pretty familiar with many of the highly specialized
workf
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
wrote:
> (1) nothing lines up like it does on normal history pages, and (2) I can't
> see everything that changed since I last looked. Yes, I'm probably atypical
> in that I like reading wikitext diffs for discussion pages. But I'd find
I don't
On 9 June 2014 13:51, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's precisely my point. Because current talk page discussions are -
> on
> > >
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:52:44 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
In this case, which post are you replying to in flow when you reply to
multiple people? In mediawiki you sort of work around the issue, and it
sort of works because you try to create some ad-hoc solution. When the
software creates a h
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, James Forrester
wrote:
> On 9 June 2014 11:28, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM, James Forrester <
> jforres...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You think people want dual inheritance for comments? Seriously?
> >> That's… (to be polit
On 9 June 2014 11:28, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM, James Forrester
> wrote:
>
>> You think people want dual inheritance for comments? Seriously?
>> That's… (to be polite) completely insane as a discussion system from a
>> user perspective, and perhaps more importantl
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
>
>> So I want to know:
>> * What are the blockers for doing this?
>> * Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are
>> not in Flow that need to be ported over?
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM, James Forrester
wrote:
> On 9 June 2014 11:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester <
> jforres...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra
> wrote:
> >> > That takes care of the issues of
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, James Forrester
wrote:
> You think people want dual inheritance for comments? Seriously?
> That's… (to be polite) completely insane as a discussion system from a
> user perspective, and perhaps more importantly for your argument,
> completely not something that hap
On 9 June 2014 11:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester
> wrote:
>
>> On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>> > That takes care of the issues of replying to one comment (a new node in
>> > an existing tree), zero comments (a new root node), but n
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester
wrote:
> On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester <
> jforres...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 8,
On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester
> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> > > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Flow s
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That's precisely my point. Because current talk page discussions are - on
> > the software level - unstructured, it allows social conventions to d
> [weighing in on the nesting/quoting bikeshed: the structured quoting
> which Simple Machines Forum (SMF) provides is a nice compromise: it
> preserves the exact origin of the quoted material, for easy
> backreference, but it also allows flexible editing of the quoted
> content and for combining
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
>
>
> That's precisely my point. Because current talk page discussions are - on
> the software level - unstructured, it allows social conventions to do
> everything you want it to do structure wise, and to invent new uses as we
> go. The dom
[beating my own drum:]
Indeed, I have a working (rough draft of) realtime collaborative
editing at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TogetherJS.
It is quite an interesting UX when you allow realtime "writing at"
each other in this form. Old-timers will remember "ytalk" chats as a
very diff
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Thomas Gries wrote:
> Am 09.06.2014 11:42, schrieb David Gerard:
>
>
>>
>> I wonder how much everyone would hate us if we just replaced talk
>> pages with Apache Wave ...
>>
>
> or Etherpad
>
> Why stop at talk pages?
>
>
> ___
Am 09.06.2014 11:42, schrieb David Gerard:
I wonder how much everyone would hate us if we just replaced talk
pages with Apache Wave ...
or Etherpad
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/list
On 9 June 2014 10:30, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> [1] i.e. a tree structure is far less powerful than what we have now to
> approximate the domain, a dag with dividable nodes probably comes closer,
> and is already fiendishly complicated to pull off on a UI level. And then I
> haven't even gone in
The key thing about Usenet and email is that the first-class entity
was the individual message - on web forums, the first-class entity is
the thread. On Usenet or email, a "thread" is something strung
together on the fly from the surviving References: headers of whatever
messages have made it as fa
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester
wrote:
> On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Flow stores the comments as a structured tree
> >
> > That seems a fundamenta
Can I just chime in briefly and say I am glad this conversation is
happening before Flow goes into production. This is the kind of
conversation that leads to better software, especially when power users
participate in the discussion and influence design decisions long before
software is pushed out
I see traditional email and newsgroup clients missing a bit from
Krinkle's list. Subthreading works perfectly fine in Thunderbird (but
even in Outlook Express!). Indenting is the one characteristic found in
all wiki conversations: subthreading can't be discarded based on gut
feelings.
In my exp
On 8 Jun 2014, at 17:22, James Forrester wrote:
— Krinkle
> On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
>> martijnhoeks...@gmail.com >
>> wrote:
>>
Flow stores the comments as a structured tree
>>
>> That seems a fundamental mi
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoeks...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
>
> >> Flow stores the comments as a structured tree
>
> That seems a fundamental mistake. A discussion isn't a tree, it's a dag at
> best. It's possible fo
Oops, sent too soon. More comments below.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
>
>> Flow stores the comments as a structured tree
>
>
>
That seems a fundamental mistake. A discussion isn't a tree, it's a dag at
best. It's possible for a single comment in a discussion to ref
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> With that said, we will likely experiment with improvements to the
> existing talk page model as well, just to see how far we can push it.
> The mobile apps team is interested in implementing talk page support
> in the apps, and since Flow is
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the thoughtful critique.
> There were four problems with talk/discussion pages that users across
> multiple communities over multiple years have identified:
>
>- Automatic signatures for posts/edits
>- More efficient method for indenting that is not dependent on a
On 6 June 2014 16:28, S Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Juergen Fenn <
> schneeschme...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You might like to
> > know, though, that on German Wikipedia most discussions about Flow
> > seem to focus on how to turn it off or how to keep it out of the
> > pr
On 06.06.2014 22:17, Brian Wolff wrote:
On 6/6/14, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
So I want to know:
* What are the blockers for doing this?
* Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are
not in Flow that need to be ported
2014-06-07 3:11 GMT+02:00 Max Semenik :
> So you propose to never ever change the look and feel because it might piss
> off some old-timers?
To sum it up for tonight, I was speaking about tact and psychology in
the first place. And I said that this is not about some old-timers,
but about the bulk
So you propose to never ever change the look and feel because it might piss
off some old-timers?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Juergen Fenn
wrote:
> 2014-06-07 2:44 GMT+02:00 Arcane 21 :
> > Going to have concur on this. Flow and VE would be great for attracting
> new users, but leaving the f
2014-06-07 2:44 GMT+02:00 Arcane 21 :
> Going to have concur on this. Flow and VE would be great for attracting new
> users, but leaving the foundation of the community in the dust in favor of
> innovation strikes me as a bad idea.
>
> I support the idea of having the ability for the old methods
iquidThreads - how do we kill it?
>
> 2014-06-06 22:28 GMT+02:00 S Page :
>
> > The tone of your message made me want to cry, quit my job, and punch the
> > wall in frustration :(
>
> I am sorry, S, this is certainly not what I intended. I apologise for
> the tone of
2014-06-06 22:28 GMT+02:00 S Page :
> The tone of your message made me want to cry, quit my job, and punch the
> wall in frustration :(
I am sorry, S, this is certainly not what I intended. I apologise for
the tone of my last mail.
> But I appreciate you being open about your dislike
> and susp
On Friday, June 6, 2014, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Receiving a watchlist notification because some other part of the talk
> page got changed (albeit I never contributed to that sub discussion)
> makes it nearly impossible to follow-up on replies. And I am probably
> not the only one.
>
You just po
On 6/6/14, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Le 06/06/2014 20:17, Brian Wolff a écrit :
>> Personally I have yet to see a discussion system that surpasses (or
>> really even comes close) to standard talk page ":::comment here. "
>> syntax. Honestly it would make me happy if we just used that in
>> genera
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Juergen Fenn
wrote:
> You might like to
> know, though, that on German Wikipedia most discussions about Flow
> seem to focus on how to turn it off or how to keep it out of the
> project altogether. Switching to Flow would require a community
> consensus anyway. So
Le 06/06/2014 20:17, Brian Wolff a écrit :
> Personally I have yet to see a discussion system that surpasses (or
> really even comes close) to standard talk page ":::comment here. "
> syntax. Honestly it would make me happy if we just used that in
> general.
Hello,
On the other side, the supe
.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] LiquidThreads - how do we kill it?
>
> On 6 June 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >> YMMV. Wikipedia is pretty much enculturated, but RationalWiki gets
> >
On 6 June 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> YMMV. Wikipedia is pretty much enculturated, but RationalWiki gets
>> n00bs *all the time* who object to something on a page. You know what
>> the most frequent reply involves? "Please learn t
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 June 2014 19:17, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
> > Personally I have yet to see a discussion system that surpasses (or
> > really even comes close) to standard talk page ":::comment here. "
> > syntax. Honestly it would make me happy if we j
On 6 June 2014 19:17, Brian Wolff wrote:
> Personally I have yet to see a discussion system that surpasses (or
> really even comes close) to standard talk page ":::comment here. "
> syntax. Honestly it would make me happy if we just used that in
> general.
> The exception being pages with lar
On 6/6/14, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
>
>> So I want to know:
>> * What are the blockers for doing this?
>> * Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are
>> not in Flow that need to be ported over?
>>
>
> Flow doesn't su
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Juergen Fenn
wrote:
> 2014-06-06 0:16 GMT+02:00 Danny Horn :
> > The Flow team is going to work in a few weeks on automatically archiving
> > talk pages, so that we can enable Flow on pages where there are already
> > existing conversations. Basically, this means m
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> So I want to know:
> * What are the blockers for doing this?
> * Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are
> not in Flow that need to be ported over?
>
Flow doesn't support actual threaded discussions beyond a very lim
Hoi,
While some may think it perfectly ok to be contrary and argue vehemently to
keep old hat technology operational for them and everyone around them, I
wonder if they consider cost and consequences.
* Cost to maintain duplicate and increasingly feature incompatible
functionality
* Cost to the use
2014-06-06 0:16 GMT+02:00 Danny Horn :
> The Flow team is going to work in a few weeks on automatically archiving
> talk pages, so that we can enable Flow on pages where there are already
> existing conversations. Basically, this means moving the old discussions on
> an archive page, and leaving a
The Flow team is going to work in a few weeks on automatically archiving
talk pages, so that we can enable Flow on pages where there are already
existing conversations. Basically, this means moving the old discussions on
an archive page, and leaving a link for "See archived talk page" visible on
th
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> So from what I can see Flow pretty much does everything LiquidThreads
> does. Usually better (permalinks with LiquidThreads are one thing that
> completely bugs me - they don't always take me to the correct place)
>
> As I understand it there is
+1 to converting all talk pages past and future to standard wikitext.
Jon, that happens "only" when someone else has replied to the thread in
the meanwhile: get faster. ;)
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34247#c2
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l
It's usually in e-mail notifications
e.g. the one I got today which takes me to the wrong thread (throws me
at top of page)
<<<
Hi Jdlrobson,
this is a notification from MediaWiki that a new thread on Extension
talk:MobileFrontend, 'Not able to save changes to existing pages in
MobileFront end',
w
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> permalinks with LiquidThreads are one thing that
> completely bugs me - they don't always take me to the correct place
They work fine for me. Do you have any specific examples where it fails?
Helder
_
On 5 June 2014 21:38, Jon Robson wrote:
> So from what I can see Flow pretty much does everything LiquidThreads
> does. Usually better (permalinks with LiquidThreads are one thing that
> completely bugs me - they don't always take me to the correct place)
> As I understand it there is a migration
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:38:54 +0200, Jon Robson wrote:
So I want to know:
* What are the blockers for doing this?
* Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are
not in Flow that need to be ported over?
One thing that immediately springs to mind is being able to enable it
So from what I can see Flow pretty much does everything LiquidThreads
does. Usually better (permalinks with LiquidThreads are one thing that
completely bugs me - they don't always take me to the correct place)
As I understand it there is a migration script that turns LiquidThread
pages to Flow boa
68 matches
Mail list logo
