I think it would be a good idea, especially after seeing that topics can't actually be deleted (see below).
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast
|Main page||Article assessment||Article collaboration||Article alerts||Project templates||Members||Talk page|
|WikiProject Breakfast||(Rated Project-class)|
Do we want to go back to normal talk page format?
The original thought was that this WikiProject's members seem to be experienced Wikipedians, and can tolerate any kind of problem, and actually recognize when something is broken as compared to when something does not work just because of problems operating the site.
I like the idea of talk page reform. The experiment here has surfaced a lot of problems with WP:FLOW (the experimental talk page format used here) which I would not have understood otherwise.
If new Wikipedians were coming here and having problems, I would be sympathetic, but I would like FLOW to be tested and I cannot think of a better place to do it than here.
Do you object to FLOW being tested? Do you object to it being tested here? Can you suggest any better place to test it? I am still happy to be a FLOW volunteer tester here on this page, even though I acknowledge that it is not ready to be introduced to the general Wikipedia population.
New Wikipedians are having problems with it though, see e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg
I fail to recognize what happened here. Does this mean that posts in FLOW, to be deleted, go through the page deletion process in Wikipedia?
Also, did this happen in WikiProject Breakfast? Is there any way to see how that post is tied to this forum?
I cannot see who made that post. Its history on the deletion page leads back to WikiProject Breakfast. Ah, is that the best way to see the forum of origin for the post?
I agree that it is all confusing but I am not convinced that new users are bothered. Even the most popular WikiProjects are low-traffic with new users, and this is not a popular WikiProject.
Um, it happened here, and it was a new user who was bothered by it, so... Yes, seeing the history and what happened where is difficult, as is deleting things on Flow pages (or complete Flow pages).
Testing can be done at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page (or at mediawiki). The tests hare don't help this project and aren't necessary (yet) for the Flow project, which has plenty of issues to solve before any further rollout to projects, user talk, article talk, ... is realistic.
That is a great response which I feel merits an answer from the developers. It does seem that in many ways Flow is not usable, despite it being usable in some contexts.
Thanks. To give you an idea of the problems; just check "contributions" (top right of the screen, i.e. your own contributions). Do you see the edits you made in this topic? I don't see the ones I made, so I guess it will be the same for you.
This and many similar problems with history, contributions, and watchlist (and so on) have been noted on the Flow feedback pages since (at least) February.
Hmm... that is really strange, and a great reason to prevent rolling this out where new Wikipedians are, but not so horrible that I would keep it away from controlled trials with experienced Wikipedians if that were necessary for development.
It is working well enough for this conversation. I just would not want any new user to have this experience.
I was under the impression (perhaps wrong, of course) that Flow contributions weren't supposed to be tracked as part of your local contributions, but via a separate project. This seems like a very sensible system for software that does cross-project discussions. Otherwise, you'd be left saying, "Where'd that post get counted? The discussion was linked to 40 wikis, so it could be any of them. Hmm, maybe I should check Meta first...."
Another nice example of throwing away the standard method for the exception (99% of the talk pages will never be cross-wiki). And, of course, that exception doesn't work yet anyway. Plus, which "separate project"? Perhaps something that should be discussed with the different communities before it gets rolled out and can't be rolled back "because that would cause too many problems, but we won't do it again, promised, this time for real". We are already stuck with the Topic namespace (where and when has that been announced), which is a huge black hole at the moment.
I've filed the contributions issue as bugzilla:70662. (The contributions are showing up in the correct sub-section if I use the drop-down to select a namespace, but for some contributions, for some editors, they're not showing up in the "All" section.)
@Dougweller: Admins can delete topics, but only via the link in the action-menu (but the flow team plans to add [undo/delete] links into the history page.) .
Re: the issue that Eddymason experienced, sadly I didn't see the deletion discussion because of the broken manual ping, though I did talk with him on my talkpage earlier about it, and I believed him to be fine with it. - Deleting the topic would not actually fix the issue he is experiencing, but I shall re-enquire of the dev when those confusing page-initialization edits (not actual content edits) are going to disappear from our contributions. HTH.
Admins can delete topics? Please check WT:Flow and xaosflux's experiences...
I don't mind it, took some getting used to.
And have any of them used it for project-related business since? Not recently, clearly.
A low level of comments is pretty typical for this small project.
Comments on the old talk-page system (for the 6 months before Flow-related discussions started):
- May 2013: 3 comments
- June 2013: 3 comments
- July 2013: 0 comments
- August 2013: 5 comments
- September 2013: 3 comments
- October 2013: 1 comment
Comments in Flow for the same months (excluding hidden comments):
- May 2014: 6 comments
- June 2014: 0 comments
- July 2014: 17 comments (1 about Flow)
- August 2014: 0 comments
- September 2014: 16 so far (but 15 are about Flow)
That looks like approximately a 70% increase in traffic year over year.
And? Are you going to use one slightly lively discussion as evidence for anything? Good going...
July 10 Flow Update
Please see News and Notes, at Wikipedia talk:Flow#July 10 Flow Update, for the major update today. Feedback there is appreciated. Thanks.
Just a heads-up that I'm talking over at WT:FOOD about re-writing the articles related to candy. This is resulting in Confectionery getting an accurate scope: bakers' confections (including many breakfast-oriented pastries and baked goods) plus sugar confections (candy/sweets) instead of just the sugar ones.
If you'd like to help with the breakfast aspects of Confectionery, then please feel free to join in. If there's a list of pastries or something, then it would be nice to have that linked.
Also, does anyone have a decent source about people eating candy for breakfast?
History: when the breakfast wikiproject was started we had a category: Breakfast foods, but it was deleted shortly after its creation through the wp:CfD process which I personally believe is a flawed process that damages efforts of editors to organize content...
Thanks. Mekitsa sounds a bit like sopapillas, which also aren't on the list. I wonder if they're considered more "bread" than "pastry"? (I'm not sure what the difference is; fundamentally, all pastries are breads.)
Ottawahitech: I haven't seen any good sources that claim it's candy alone; confectionery is split into sugar confectionery (candy) and baker's confectionery (pastry and other sweet baked goods). I'm not sure which category ice cream is supposed to be included in, but I've also seen several sources that say it's a confection.
I will come up with something. My employer Consumer Reports has had engineers doing a lot of breakfast research for the past few months. Some research is in the food guides and I think in the news now CR is protesting the food coloring in waffle syrup.
I tried to start a new topic , but can't -- what I wanted to ask is why there have been no updates posted here from the developers in over a month.
Out of curiosity, What OS/browser are you using?
I've got a source for eating candy for breakfast... and it says that sugar cereal is candy! The first was something like Sugar Crisp by Quaker Oats, and it was specifically made as candy-coated breakfast cereal puff, as a one-time treat for fairgoers for the 1904 World Fair.[source] The first commercial sugar cereal was put out in 1939, and the only serious difference between this presweetened "cereal" and the World Fair "candy" was the marketing.
Do you think that it would be weird to include this in Candy, as part of the information about meal replacements?
No it is not weird and yes share it, that is awesome! Do you have access to deeper sources? How did you get the name Sugar Crisp, when that is not in the original source? The section heading on 285 says, "Candy for Breakfast". I wonder if contemporary marketing really did call it a "candy-coated cereal puff".
Bluerasberry: There's a 1951 ad for Post's Sugar Crisp reproduced in plate 15, which isn't in the Google Books version. It says that their cereal can be eaten as breakfast, snack, or candy. (All the color plates appear to be "page 183" according to Google.)
WhatamIdoing: Is it your belief that this is not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If I uploaded this for you, would you use it?
Bluerasberry: Perhaps I cannot do that. It looks like Saturday Evening Post has its copyright renewed from April 1950 on. The uploader says this is 1950, but someone else says this is from November 1960. Not sure...
Bluerasberry: Hmmm - not sure about the Saturday evening post ad, the other ad is from an unnamed publication, but that video seems fair game for Wikimedia Commons.
WhatamIdoing: Duke University is managing that Sugar Bear video. I have an email pending to their librarian about copyright. If it is really clear, I should upload it after managing this correspondence. This should not take more than a week.
Bluerasberry: I wanted that TV ad on Archive.org but it seems that it is has the default (complete) copyright on it and will not be free for a long time. Duke Library holds the collection but they are not copyright holders. I suppose all these ads could be cited but unfortunately, this video seems copyrighted, the Saturday Evening Post ad is copyrighted, and the "1951 Post Sugar Crisp Cereal Ad" is from an unspecified magazine so I cannot check the copyright. It seems that I can take no further action to get any of these ads on Commons.
Bluerasberry: It's possible that the ad could be justified as Fair Use (to talk about marketing/the fact that candy wasn't a dirty word back then), but I think we'd want to get other opinions on it.
I suppose we could figure out how to contact the company to ask them what they copyright status was. In theory, I think that they, rather than the magazine, hold the copyright for the ads (they ran this one in multiple magazines). It depends a little on the advertising contract terms, but the usual thing to do (these days, anyway) is to license your ad to the publication, and hold the copyright yourself.
WhatamIdoing: I am not prepared to make a fair use argument, and anyway I try not to put much effort into things that cannot be used in other languages.
There is no existing infrastructure for making routine requests to external organizations for their content. I am not prepared to ask either Post Foods or any magazine for this content.
I am not sure of consensus on Commons for old ads. If you or anyone else is serious about pursuing this as an option then I would continue the conversation as we could go forward, but my initial thought is that all easy routes seem closed and that I myself am unwilling to lead an effort to do anything beyond following the easy routes. I think fair use would be the easiest route of remaining options, but I really prefer not to make fair use arguments.
Bluerasberry: Now's not the time to make any fair-use claims anyway; it ought to be done within minutes of uploading the image.
Update on this: I e-mailed Post about the copyright status on their old advertisements back in July, and despite being (I thought, anyway) pretty clear about my question, I recently received a boilerplate message asking me for things like the name of the publication, the audience, the author, and so forth that I wanted to use the image on.
I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth replying with "The name of the publication is Wikipedia, and since you've got an internet connection, then YOU are the audience", since they obviously didn't understand what I wrote the first time.
I become less tempted to try this again after having tried this more than a hundred times without success, and without hearing of anyone else having success in these contexts.
If I were to pursue this, I might consider checking whether they renewed their copyright. See Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisements for a striking assessment which seems to suggest that there is a lot of opportunity to share content in Commons. We probably have a friend in copyright expert Cory Doctorow who has commented on this in the past, and who has supported the active LiveJournal group Vintage Ads. I think it might be more rewarding to write to the Vintage Ads group than to Post.
Price of breakfast foods going up?
This is for Ottawahitech
I still cannot start a new topic - my + Start a new topic is not clickable.
I would like to post this: Price of breakfast foods going up?
The price of lean pork in the futures market is at record levels and is up 52 percent since the start of the year
Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year
My add topic seems to work.
Update on Flow trial: what's new, what's next
Greetings, WikiProject Breakfast!
Now that you've had a chance to use Flow in your discussion space, we wanted to check in and see how you feel about the current set of features.
- Recap of work to date
As a quick recap, in the past 4 weeks, we've updated the visual design and behavior of some of our features per your and other users' feedback:
- permanent reply and edit buttons instead of hover buttons
- moderation actions and permalinks moved into a menu instead of appearing on hover
- darker body text
- tighter spacing between posts and topics
- third level of indentation for posts (code currently live on mediawiki.org and set to kick in here later this week)
- found and fixed many bugs
- What's next
We're still just getting started with the visual design and features of Flow. We're currently working on an overhaul of our frontend code and design, which will make it look better across multiple screens (large and small) and more browsers. You can see the early stages of this work in this prototype: http://area51.yar.gs/wmf/flow1/#, including a new navigational feature to the right of discussions. In addition, we'd like to do the following in the next month or so:
- add in-board search feature (you can see it in the prototype above)
- add a feature to summarize and close topics
- add the "thanks" feature for posts
- continue improving moderation, history, and watchlist items
- Do you still want to help?
- If you'd like to keep using Flow here, let us know what you'd like us to prioritize next that would make it better for you! We're interested in hearing what new features you'd like to see, as well changes to the existing features and design.
If you'd like to end the trial and return to using a talk page here, just let us know, and we can return your Flow posts to wikitext. Whatever you choose, thanks for trying out the software and helping us improve it!
Now that you ask, pretty pretty please, move the Reply button out of the way from the left side of the screen to the right side; this is top priority for me.
Having (Reply) the button interleaved (Reply) with the (Reply) conversation is (Reply) totally distracting. Interaction elements (Reply) shouldn't get in (Reply) the way of (Reply) the main task (Reply) which is (Reply) reading content .(Reply)
This design is a step in the wrong direction in that regard, but it would be good if the [Reply, Posted X minutes ago, Updated Y minutes ago] bar of controls would be right-aligned instead of left-aligned.
It was my understanding that one of the goals was to have threads with new comments move to the top - is this in the plans? This is important for those who do not want to participe in stale conversations.
Ottawahitech: Yes. Starting next Monday, they're working on Sort by activity, and the framework for other (future) "topic sorting" options. (Ignore the visual-design mockup and wording in that card, it's quite old now). Then once content-searching has been integrated (ongoing), they'll be able to push forward with more complex types of Filtering and Sorting, such as those suggested at User:Hhhippo/Flow.
I still cannot start a new topic - my + Start a new topic is not clickable.
I would like to post this: Price of breakfast foods going up?
The price of lean pork in the futures market is at record levels and is up 52 percent since the start of the year(bacon?)
Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year
History: is this page being rewritten from scratch, or merged with the standard history view (and both updated)? The current history-view options don't seem too easy to use: no multiedit diffs, lots of vert whitespace, hard to see how to page through large numbers of diffs. The view displaying a single diff seems nice; I haven't tried it for anything significant.
Yes I agree the history function is not usable. Lots of things here are problematic but we are using the tools as best we can. FLOW is not anywhere close to being functional but lots of things will be improved as it is developed.
Well, based on the fact that not a single contributor to this page has said "heck, yes, let's keep doing this!" and instead all of the comments have been about what problems users are encountering, I would suggest that the answer to the question "do you still want to help" is "not really". Given that a regular contributor to this page has stated that he is not able to create a new topic, and his new page-relevant topic is now lost in the middle of this thread - it seems clear that the Flow experiment is now interfering with the appropriate function of this page. It's time to pull the plug here, so that the Wikiproject members can actually use this page for its intended purpose.
Risker: "Start new topic" is working for me and for Bluerasberry. Perhaps it was just a transient glitch in his browser.
Quiddity: Why is the text in the reply box so much lighter than the text that is posted? I wouldn't mind a dark gray, but this is too light, and they probably ought to match (or at least not contrast so dramatically). Medium gray text makes me feel like this website is only intended for people who have good vision.
WhatamIdoing: It doesn't matter whether it was a "transient glitch" or one that's browser-dependent or anything else: The whole purpose of having these LIVE pages on trial is to identify issues and act on them. Six days later, nobody from the FLOW project has even bothered to inquire of @Ottawahitech: about his problem, whether it recurred for him, what OS/browser he was using, etc. If the Flow folks aren't even going to bother reviewing what is going on here, or responses to the thread that they started, then it tells me that it's time to end the experiment. This page is using Flow for their learning and benefit, not for the good of Wikiproject Breakfast.
Risker: I'd responded to Ottawahitech's "Start new topic" bug at their talkpage , but it's currently unreproducible. (If anyone encounters it, please tell me details!) Regarding the continuation of this page as a trial location: the quiet nature of the project, and the participants willingness to cope with potential bugs whilst giving feedback, is part of the reason their offer to volunteer was so gratefully accepted.
WhatamIdoing: The insufficiently-dark grey text in text-area box will be fixed soon - the frontend dev has been working on a complete overhaul, hence the existing design hasn't had as much attention or as many tweaks as we might have expected. It means the newer design will be here faster, but that we need to endure known small design flaws like this for a few more weeks.
Sj and Bluerasberry: Yup, the History page is getting an overhaul, once the RC/Watchlist/Contribs overhaul is complete - that aspect is taking longer than expected, because they're encountering and fixing some technical debt as they go. It should make future work on it all somewhat easier, but is making current work more complex. The History page should end up looking much like current history pages do - the dev notes are here for the next iteration. They're also moving towards a more revdel-based moderation architecture, so that will also need to be taken into account.
HTH. As always, the more feedback the better. :)
Yellow boxes not floating and this is a problem
The yellow boxes on this page, starting with the one called "About the project", are not floating. This is a problem for my screensize because it means that there is empty space until after the table of contents, at which point the "About the project" section begins.
If these floated then they would automatically resize to match the user's screen. Right now I do not think they look good, but they would like nice if they floated.
I do not know how to fix this but if it is a standing problem for others for a long time, I would propose to change this presentation somehow.
Bluerasberry: You must get a different view than I do. I only see one yellow box on this page and it is called " Project" not "About the project". I also don't see a table of contents.
There is a table of contents and the problem banner in this image. Do you not see these things?
Bluerasberry: The only place where I see 'File:WikiProject Breakfast banner problem.png is in your reply. On a positive note -- I did get a notification about your reply :-)
Bluerasberry: It looks like the width of the section headers is the problem, on any screeen < 1200px the 75% width requirement specified in the section header means it wont fit next to the sidebar. I'm not particularly familiar with styling tables, a temporary fix might be to reduce the width 60% or some such.
EBernhardson (WMF): Very cool yes that is a reasonable solution. Thanks for suggesting that - I also am not familiar with styling tables but it really is not so hard to make these kinds of changes. Your looking first was an encouragement to me, and yes, what you suggested is best.
I cannot imagine why title headings would not display for you. Obviously they are in the source code for everyone.
Can someone else comment on whether they at least see the title heading and table of contents?
Bluerasberry: I think the answer to both is still "no", but see this screenshot for my current view (the yellow [brown?] box still just says "Project"):
Added gallery to project page
Below the members sign up section I posted a gallery of some pictures from Commons. I used the new gallery functions which just became available a few months ago, so the images are packed and I tagged the pictures with country names to emphasize the international nature of this project. I think this gallery is not intrusive in the place where I put it plus I hope that people enjoy it here and become interested in breakfast.
Ottawahitech: It is not in this section but below it. There are about ten pictures of breakfasts.
The link is the main page associated with this talk page.
This link expires in about a month. If need be I can upload a permanent picture.
How are you viewing this page? Is your view really so radically different that so much is excluded? You are doing very strange and personalized things with your settings, right?
Wow -- looks like I am missing a lot! Thanks for the screenshot. And no I am not doing anything strange, at least not on purpose :-)
Vertical whitespace makes it hard to figure out attribution. The "Sj" above this textarea looks to me like it is attached to the text above, requires a doubletake to realize it's my own sig.
The "..." is hard to understand as a navigation element.
The bottom of the textarea quivers for me on MacOS/Chrome: it's not fixed.
The subtext "By clicking "Reply..." is a fine fontsize, but a) doesn't need the extra word 'irrevocably' and b) could be cleaner if aligned with the left edge of the whitespace above it, not the left edge of the [blue] highlighted margin.
I like the color scheme used for text, margin, and buttons.
I agree with the ... being non-intuitive and have no comment on the rest. I do not have stylistic expectations for usability except that eventually this go through focus group testing before rolling it out. I think the opinions of complete non-Wikipedians should be influential in the final accepted design.
Is anyone in this project involved in article assessment?
In light of the discussion thread Article assessment (which I don't know how to link here), I was wondering if anyone is actively assessing articles in this wiki-project? Thanks,
I'm thinking that Doughnut might be better ranked as high-importance than as mid; "coffee and a doughnut" is a classic commuter breakfast. What do other people think?
Flow & pings
Dougweller I got a wikinotice saying you mentioned me, but the link just goes to "View board". No way to see the particular post or diff that mentioned me. , and since my name shows up just below EVERY post to let me reply, there is no good way to search for my name!
Go comment at Wikipedia talk:Flow. My response was about the whitespace.
Hi -- sorry it took so long to answer this; I didn't realize this conversation was still going unanswered. We're right in the middle of making some big changes to Flow notifications, which are aimed at making it easier to track the conversations you're involved in, and filter out the ones that you don't care about. That's started to roll out on Mediawiki.org, and the changes will show up here a week behind.
We're going to make a change to the way that the ping feature works, to integrate it with the new notifications system. That's maybe a month out, if all goes well -- so hopefully that will solve this problem. Thanks for reporting this -- let me know what other kinds of ideas you have, or problems that you see.