On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, S Page sp...@wikimedia.org 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) 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.
Yes, I'm probably atypical in that I like reading wikitext diffs for
On 9 Jun 2014, at 20:58, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:52:44 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com 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
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 e...@wikimedia.org
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 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.
Am 10.06.2014 09:33, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de 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
On Jun 10, 2014 9:33 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 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
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
On 10 June 2014 15:34, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org 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
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org 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
* 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 general
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
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
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
Flow stores the comments as a
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 far
On 9 June 2014 10:30, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de 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?
[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
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 do
everything you want it to do structure wise, and to invent new
[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 9:56 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
On 9 June 2014 11:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
That takes care of the issues of replying to one comment (a new
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
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
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 9 June 2014 11:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 9 June 2014 02:30, Martijn Hoekstra
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
On 9 June 2014 11:28, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com 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 polite) completely insane as a discussion system from a
user
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 9 June 2014 11:28, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You think people want dual inheritance for comments?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:52:44 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com 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.
On 9 June 2014 13:51, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org 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.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org 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,
Oops, sent too soon. More comments below.
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 for a single comment in
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
Flow stores the comments as a structured tree
That seems a fundamental mistake. A discussion isn't a tree, it's a dag
On 8 Jun 2014, at 17:22, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
— Krinkle
On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
Flow stores the comments as a
On 06.06.2014 22:17, Brian Wolff wrote:
On 6/6/14, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
So I want to know:
* What are the blockers for doing this?
* Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads
On 6 June 2014 16:28, S Page sp...@wikimedia.org 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
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
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
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Juergen Fenn schneeschme...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2014-06-06 0:16 GMT+02:00 Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org:
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
On 6/6/14, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
On 6 June 2014 19:17, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 June 2014 19:17, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com 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
On 6 June 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
: [Wikitech-l] LiquidThreads - how do we kill it?
On 6 June 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
YMMV. Wikipedia is pretty much enculturated, but RationalWiki gets
n00bs *all the time* who object
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 super
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
project altogether. Switching to Flow would require a
On 6/6/14, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr 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
On Friday, June 6, 2014, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr 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.
2014-06-06 22:28 GMT+02:00 S Page sp...@wikimedia.org:
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
and where possible and for the transition to newer
ideas to be as gentle as possible on those who might otherwise be alienated by
the changes.
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 02:39:17 +0200
From: schneeschme...@googlemail.com
To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] LiquidThreads - how do
2014-06-07 2:44 GMT+02:00 Arcane 21 arc...@live.com:
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
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 schneeschme...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2014-06-07 2:44 GMT+02:00 Arcane 21 arc...@live.com:
Going to have concur on this. Flow and VE would be great for
2014-06-07 3:11 GMT+02:00 Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com:
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,
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
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:38:54 +0200, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
On 5 June 2014 21:38, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
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',
was
+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
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com 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
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
the
2014-06-06 0:16 GMT+02:00 Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org:
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
68 matches
Mail list logo
