We are planning to put Flow into public dumps this month, and work with all
the remaining communities still using LQT about converting to Flow. I
wanted to let this announcement settle for a minute before we talk to them.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working
> >>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk
> >>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,
> > 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  , 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,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: