|If you are having problem with Flow notifications (too many, can't get them removed, making it harder to get to your alerts, ...) then you can go to your preferences and remove the default "tick" from Flow in the last tab ("notifications"). Flow notifications also don't get automatically marked as "read" and set to zero, unlike other Echo alerts. You have, in the dropdown for Echo (the red number at the top of your screen), a black bold text "mark all as read" at the top right (if you have any unread). All problems, errors, questions can be posted at WT:Flow. At the moment, the Flow team is looking to patch some things.|
|This is the page for suggestions, comments, and other collaboration, on how Flow works (features/functionality).
To discuss the design aspects, please use Wikipedia talk:Flow/Design FAQ instead. Thanks!
|Note that the prototype is being updated very frequently at the moment (whenever code changes are ready for testing). Much of the functionality is not fully built, and the design is rapidly changing. It is not the finished product!|
|Threads older than 15 days may be archived by.|
What do we mean by "Flow"?
I think one of the problems in discussions like the one above is that we don't always mean the same thing when we talk about Flow:
- Some people have their own vision of their preferred discussion system, based on one or the other idea taken from Flow and a number of own ideas they'd like to see added or changed. By Flow they mean Flow as it could be if only the devs would listen to me.
- Some people are strongly suspicious regarding the capability, motivation or organization of the WMF. They mean the discussion system the WMF will probably force upon us.
- Others just look at the Flow version currently deployed here, see the obvious deficiencies, and assume they won't be removed. By Flow they mean Flow [f0328f0].
- Finally, there's casual readers who see the extrapolation of one of the other groups and take that for granted. They mean What I heard about Flow.
I think we could have a more constructive discussion if we tried harder to make clear what we're talking about, and if we would as far as possible separate the discussion about technical points like data models and software features from the political ones like who does the programming and who decides what software is deployed where. — HHHIPPO 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Flow is a quantum superposition of all of the above; it will only collapse to something tangible on release day. What data models and software features will be possible depend largely on the politics of the project, as the WMF developers currently aren't accountable to the online community.
- For us to be able to make the distinctions you suggest, a much more detailed and updated roadmap should be put in place together with the design constraints and decisions already taken, as well as a firm statement of how the project will be handled. This is needed so that we could effectively distinguish when we are doing politics and when we're daydreaming about ideal (or even plausible) designs. In the current climate of uncertainty, our only hope is that we can convey a design so desirable that the WMF'ers will fall in love for it and decide to create that instead of following their initial, apparently unmovable stated goals. Diego (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Move not listed in the logs?
In July, User:Quiddity (WMF) (I presume) moved Topic: The Washington & Jefferson College Review to Topic- The Washington & Jefferson College Review. However, this doesn't show up in the page history. Can this kind of thing please be avoided? Things which don't appear in the history (except real oversight issues) create mistrust and confusion.
Would it be a technical issue if the page was moved to Topic : The Washington & Jefferson College Review? This would more closely resemble the correct title.
Oh, and by the way, if you now search for the original title, you get a nice pink error: [cca66461] 2014-12-10 15:32:57: Fatal exception of type Flow\Exception\InvalidInputException. Considering that the links to the moved page were only corrected nearly two months after the page move, quite a few people mauy have encountered this... Fram (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Topic- A Journal of the Liberal Arts and Topic: A Journal of the Liberal Arts, the journal's former name. This needs to be fixed, since both of the titles with colons need to be redirects. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Re: Page-move missing-log problem, I've now filed as phab:T78170. Thanks. (TL;DR: The page-moves were done at a database level. I've asked what possible ways we have to fix those 5 moves. (All are alternate-titles/redirects for the same article))
- The Fatal exception for the original titles is filed as phab:T70258
- "support Topic:OldPagename as a #REDIRECT" is phab:T70846, and IIUC should be possible once the blocker-bug is resolved (something database-ish).
- Re: Using the title "Topic : foo" - I tested at ee-flow and it doesn't work, but hopefully T70846 will resolve this in the ideal way. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)