On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can
>>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for
>>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages".
>>Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
>>people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
>>talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
>>discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With
>>Flow it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile
>>Frontend and apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies
>>ambassador in my home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the
>>#1 request that I hear from veteran editors with regards to using
>>Wikipedia on their phones. This is another thing that Flow has been doing
>>for many months already.
> I think most of the points you raise here are true of LiquidThreads or
> _any_ prototype of a discussion system. Yes, you get a reply button
> instead of needing ":: ~~~~" wikitext. That's great, I agree, but after
> having watched LiquidThreads rot and then seeing a lot of time, money, and
> effort put into Flow, I'm pretty dissatisfied with the deliverable being
> essentially a very intricate proof-of-concept. I think not getting Flow
> fully deployed to Wikimedia wikis is objectively a large failure to
> deliver. Consequently, it seems most prudent to be asking what went wrong
> and how it will be better next time. The underlying reality is that we
> still need a better on-wiki discussion system and it now looks like
> neither LiquidThreads nor Flow are going to be it.

In addition to this, we still have LiquidThreads (LQT) in production.

I can understand Flow being put into maintenance mode, especially if
temporarily while energy is focused elsewhere, but I believe the main
Flow project should at least include:

1. dumping Flow content into the public dumps (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89398 ), and

2. decommissioning LiquidThreads on all Wikimedia sites by converting
them to Flow

According to Wikiapiary [1] , there are still seven 'active' WMF sites
using LiquidThreads.

I see LQT is still actively being used on five of them:




(conversion to Flow requested: T104089)

(conversion to Flow requested: T106302)

But no Thread: activity on two others:
(They are trialling Flow? T107301)

It is also installed on two locked projects: Wikimania 2010, and
Wikimedia Strategic Planning.  Can't they be converted to Flow ?

And it is still installed on https://www.mediawiki.org/ .  Is that
still necessary?

Is the current plan simply "let users request LiquidThreads pages be
converted to Flow"?

Which of the above sites are only using it in user talk?

Have any of the above sites affirmatively decided they do not want to
switch to Flow (yet)?
If so, what are their reasons?


John Vandenberg

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to