Wikipedia talk:Flow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Flow & Pings[edit]

Has anything been done to address this: Topic:Ronsz8yhsrhq3890? - tucoxn\talk 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I hadn't seen that, and I didn't realize it was still going unanswered. I just replied on that thread. Thanks for the nudge. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Can flow-enabled talk pages be categorised? For example, the header of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast contains a category link to Category:WikiProject Breakfast articles, but does not appear to be listed in that category. Just pointing out that if flow is rolled out without fixing this the article assessment system will be broken. BethNaught (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on that issue BethNaught, I've updated https://trello.com/c/YmFl7PrT/ . Generally, yes, they do need/plan to get categories working, because almost all of our existing workflows depend on templates+categories(+bots) to function. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lacks an experienced, non-sticky persona[edit]

All the personas listed are sticky. In my present guise, I'm not. Over the years, from time to time, I became involved with a page and made substantial contributions. I know the basic markup inside out, and I've gradually become familiar with the most important editorial templates and the policies these enforce. I actually use Wikipedia to survey subject areas I'm learning about for my personal and professional purposes. If I'm being thorough in my research, this often takes me into the darker reaches of unloved articles, where I'm quick to spot various kinds of breakage. I'm usually happy to invest five minutes to bump an article in the right direction. It can be anything from fixing broken markup, copy editing, adjusting balance, splitting an overgrown lead, or plumping up an insufficient lead (the lead is the most frequent problem area I find myself fixing in the musty article space). I believe the majority of my edits serve Wikipedia editorial policy, but I don't hang around to polish my surgeries; I'm hoping others will come along with more investment in that subject area for the smoothing out (always leave a nickel for the next guy). Though my attentions are brief I strongly believe in leaving explanatory tracks. If the template reason field or the edit comment don't suffice, I generally leave a paragraph on the talk page; sometimes all three. In the rare case where my edits are reverted, I don't return to the scene of my crime to contest the issue: I'm okay if 90–95% of my edits make it through infancy unscathed. It's more efficient to be a little on the edge than to second guess myself. Generally I'm an experienced seagull editor who drops a note into a conversation and then bubbles off. I'm not antisocial. If someone challenged one of my edits on my talk page, I would surely respond. I find in software development projects it's always good to model at least one persona who doesn't love what you're building as much as you do. A non-sticky persona might be a good add. Also, I've often added comments to talk pages where I suspect the talk page won't be viewed again for weeks or months or years. I'm quicker to make edits on the pages where editorial velocity and conflict are inherently low. That's another aspect you might wish to model: semi-retired editors who mainly stick to infrequently traveled back roads, where topics created are more like messages in a bottle to record intent than to solicit active engagement (attached to pages where I might not have much of an interest or opinion on its future evolution). I've been around long enough to hold an opinion about the kinds of edits a less experienced editor (say 300 edits) might be afraid to take on, for fear of ruffling some previous contributor's feathers. It's my intent, anyway, that some of my more savage edits lower the permission barrier for such a person (in fly-by-night mode, I rarely delete existing text unless it's extremely out of line, as this strikes me as rude). I would wish to monitor my topics to make myself available to provide clarification about my original motivation. But generally I don't wish to monitor these topics for forward developments. I sure hope the new discussion system doesn't end up conveying the implication that whenever someone opens a new topic that they plan to stick around and set up a tent. I'm a batcher, who edits mainly in passing, usually with external agendas in tow. The last thing I wish to bring into my life for my efforts is a rolling notification feed, though I do believe in showing up to account for my past actions, if I wasn't clear enough in my original note. Those are a few dimensions people might consider if you decide to enlarge your persona roster.— MaxEnt 08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a great perspective to add, and well-explained. Thank you. (and with my volunteer hat: "I like how you roll", as the kids say. ;-) ) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)