Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast/Flow archive

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

Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?[edit]

I see this week's Signpost WikiProject report says this:

WikiProjects are requested to test the first release of Flow, a new discussion and collaboration system for all Wikimedia projects. If you'd like your project to be included in the Flow pilot this December, please contact Maryana.

Not a lot of notice, but there it is. Is anyone here interested in trying out Flow? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just read up. It seems interesting. Here are some links:
I haven't quite figured out where to sign up, though. I'm sure the link is right under my nose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Hafspajen: That is a good question. I have just discovered Flow recently, but I see many discussing it as something that all wikipedians are familiar with. I believe it is a threaded discussion tool proposed for all talkpages. Am I right? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's more or less right. Flow is intended to (eventually) become the discussion and collaboration software for all non-article-editing processes on Wikipedia. There's been thinking/talking about this from WMF for a couple years, but we didn't have the engineering resources freed up to start working on this till just this summer.
Per WP:Flow/Community engagement, we decided that with a project this complex, it's important to start very small and very gradual – it would be silly to expect that brand new software could come in and replace 11+ years of volunteer-created workflows overnight :) That's why all we're tackling at the moment is the kind of free-form discussion that happens on WikiProject talk pages (not the much more complex stuff like AfD, GAN, FAC, etc.), and we're hoping you or other WikiProject members can help us 1) test the MVP to tell us if it's really viable for the kind of discussion that happens here, and 2) identify more features and functionality that you need, and help us prioritize what to work on next. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hestant yes, I suppose I'll try it. I don't like the visual editor. So this will look like slashdot now or Reddit? hmmm. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oaktree b: There's no VE in the first release we're building – just wikitext. You can see how it currently looks and feels by checking it out on our test wiki. Important: that's not the final product! The point of a beta trial on WikiProjects is to get feedback from people who are actually using the software for Wikipedia discussion. We need you to help us iterate on the current features/design and figure out what to build next :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh god. I hope it's better than when I used it a couple of years ago. Ok, I'll try. I found it really hard to search through discussions then as not every post was visible. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller, I'm not sure what software you used "a couple years ago," but it wasn't Flow! This project has only actively been in development for the past 2-3 months. Are you thinking of Liquidthreads? Totally unrelated to this, I assure you ;) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes that's what I was thinking of. Flow, liquid, sorry for the confusion. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@Dougweller: I am probably more confused than you are :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a trial here. This is a small WikiProject which has a lot of experienced Wikipedians here. I expect that the potential for harm here is minimal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sounds like fun, let's try it out! — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Just tried it out, had to create an account though... Seems ok, it's quick! Still don't see how people get all the ginormous fonts and stuff, for simple replies it works fine. Easier to use than the VE they tried to roll out in Wikipedia. I guess I'm old school, I still like the old style better, for newbies this will make it easier for sure. Gets my vote, so long as I can keep the old one too ;) Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as long as more active editors don't object. Seems like a suitable mission for a breakfast club. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Go for it. 👍 Like. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions to Maryana[edit]

  1. @Maryana (WMF): Is it true that Flow will change the order of talkpage sections, so that those with the most recent content will appear on top of the page? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. @Maryana (WMF): Will I be able to search all of a talk page the same way that I do now? Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. @Maryana (WMF): Why do I have to log in to experiment? I've got a global account. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. @Maryana (WMF): What will happen to existing talk on this page when this trial starts?
  5. @Maryana (WMF): How long will the trial last?
  6. @Maryana (WMF): What will happen to this pages contents when the trial ends? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. @Maryana (WMF): How will problems be tracked: will we be able to report them here, or will we be required to register somewhere else? xOttawahitech (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Responses from Maryana[edit]

Keep in mind that pretty much everything in this first trial release of Flow is made to be tested and changed if necessary, so none of the features are written in stone.

  1. Will Flow change the order of talk page sections? In the first release, the order of things works like this: when you create a new section, it appears at the top of the page. However, new replies to that section will appear below old replies (like on talk pages now), and new replies won't push a section back up to the top of the screen, so older sections will always be lower on the page. We think this will work, but we need to test it out with at least a few days' worth of real discussion to make sure it does.
  2. Will I be able to search all of a talk page the same way that I do now? It depends on how you do that now :) Flow pages will have histories, just like talk pages, and you'll be able to use keyboard shortcuts to search the page. Flow events will also show up in places you'd expect, like watchlist, recent changes, and your contributions. But we don't have site search integration in this first release. That's something we could tackle immediately after we deploy the trial, if users feel it's a top priority. We'd also like to work on more sophisticated browsing and filtering (so you can click to see just discussions you're a part of, new/unanswered discussions, etc.), but again, it will help to get users to try out Flow-enabled discussion for some time, let some content accumulate on the page, and see what kinds of searching features would be useful.
  3. Why do I have to log in to experiment? I've got a global account. The prototype is on a test wiki on WMF Labs, which isn't part of the Single User Login system that Wikipedia and its sister projects use. You can create an account, but please don't use a valuable password unless you're okay with us knowing it! (Not that we'd share it with anyone; all WMF staffers sign an NDA to ensure we keep volunteer data private.)
  4. What will happen to existing talk on this page when this trial starts? Unfortunately, we don't have a way to automatically convert free-form wikitext into structured Flow data. You'd probably want to archive existing discussions and point to them in the header (the area at the top of Flow pages for stuff like your WikiProject navigation templates, archive links, etc.). If there are active conversations happening, you could always restart them via Flow.
  5. How long will the trial last? Up to you guys :) Having as much long-term historical data as possible would be extremely helpful for us, for determining your needs around things like searching/browsing older content. As long as you're game to keep going, we'll keep building new features based on your feedback. But if you feel like the software's not doing what you need, we can disable Flow and bring back the regular talk page.
  6. What will happen to this pages contents when the trial ends? We can't turn wikitext into Flow posts, but we can turn Flow posts back to wikitext – so your discussions will be preserved and returned to you if you want to stop using Flow. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. How will problems be tracked? Ideally (I think), all discussion about Flow will happen in the usual Flow talkpages (WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) though we'll probably create a new page for the wikiproject participants to discuss Flow during its initial weeks/months. And then the Wikiproject talkpages (Flow Boards) themselves will just be business as usual, without any/much mention of Flow. If you have other ideas, let me/us/them know! :) (No one needs to create a bugzilla account, but if you're comfortable/familiar with it then that's appreciated, too.) –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires[edit]

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

  1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
  2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your WikiProject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).
Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).
Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity, I read a few conversations and posted on your try it out link. Considering its still beta, I like it, seems relatively modern and sleek. As no one has objected and the breakfast project founder ( NorthAmerica1000 ) has supported, I think you could go ahead and convert this whole page, then we can get some serious flow cooking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
They're currently looking at early January, as the planned/hoped for rollout to the volunteering wikiprojects. Lots to do before then though, and we'll reconfirm once more, closer to the date, before anything happens. –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation[edit]

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

They'd like us to confirm that we're all ready and willing to try it out right here, so that we can find out what works well, what needs more changes, and what additional features are mostly prominently desired or dreamed of over the next few months. The trial would start during the week of January 6th (specific day to be set closer to launch) and will last for as long as your WikiProject is interested in using the software (more details on ending the trial below).

Here's a synopsis of what's been added recently (which you can test at mw:Talk:Sandbox):

  • mw:Special:Contributions now works properly again.
  • 3 viewing options: normal, collapsed, and small for a Table of contents-like view of the page
  • Attribution of moderated content (see mockup image)

Here's a list of items that they're working on this month as top-priority, which will be added to the live software as soon as possible (some likely before the WikiProject trial period).

Next two weeks:

  • A more condensed "small view" (see mockup image)
  • Attribution of edited content (see mockup image)
  • Replacing the roll-over links (e.g. "Reply") with static links, and moving the permalink/moderation tools into an "action menu" (see mockup image)

Next four weeks:

  • Better automated edit-summaries (see notes)
  • Abuse-filter integration (see analysis)
  • A "thank" button (that works like the current thank feature)
  • A system to "Close and summarize" an entire topic (equivalent to {{hat}} etc)

Beyond that, there's a long list of brainstormed features, at mw:Flow Portal/Release planning#Feature buckets - your feedback and suggestions would, as ever, be most appreciated.

The transition: The current talkpage will be archived in-full in the regular way. The page will be Flow-enabled, and the WikiProject header templates added. After that, we hope that normal WikiProject discussions will resume as usual, and that any Flow-related discussions will take place at Wikipedia talk:Flow.

The "opt-out" mechanism: If there's WikiProject consensus to back out of the trial once it is underway, that will take about 24 hours from once you've decided. The Flow team will then convert the Flow Board into a wikitext page, add default signature+timestamps, and place that here. However, they do of course strongly hope that you'll weather through any small problems (of which some are inevitable), and continue to give ongoing suggestions!

The more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

I'm ready to trial
  • XOttawahitech (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You are going to flip a switch and make something change here, right? Do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sign me up Captain. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a great idea, — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm almost ready to trial, but would like to see x changed/added first.

An update on Flow[edit]

Hi all. This is a very brief note, to let you know the current plans. January 23 (Thursday, 27 (afternoon PST) is the current target date for release on this page and at WP:WikiProject Hampshire, as well as at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ (WT:Flow/Developer test page). This will give the devs time to work on a bug-sprint, so that they can concentrate on the fresh feedback from us when it goes live. :) Thanks again, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Date update: January 28th is now set on the deployment calendar. (Because next week, there's a US Holiday on Monday, and an engineer summit on Thursday/Friday). Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just noting: Should this test of Flow go live, it will be used to test functionality of both Checkuser and Oversight (suppression) tools. Test accounts will be used as well. Risker (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
for reference there is already a bug for checkuser on flow being unideal - bugzilla:60275. Bawolff (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's been a delay of one week, due to differences between the mediawikiwiki and enwiki codebases, so the deployment is now scheduled for Monday, February 3, between 11-13 PST. Thanks for your patience. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Flow[edit]

RESOLVED
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Topic title edited by Fram (talk), — xaosflux Talk, Quiddity (WMF) (talk))

Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. Please direct all feedback on the software to WT:Flow, to avoid distractions here. Thanks!

Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity (WMF): Cool! Ottawahitech (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting this...weird premonition that if we go ahead with this design, we'll probably need to rework the wikiproject headers ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okeyes (WMF): I get this weird premonition that this is one of the reasons why you should not go ahead with this design. —Keφr 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Kephir: I think that this is a vast improvement over the normal Talk Pages. Discussions are far easier to navigate and contribute to, which is absolutely worth a bit of a rework for talk page headers. Besides, it's still a Beta. Nicereddy (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Kephir: The design can always be improved. :-)
MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): Is there any particular reason why it isn't set to use the full width of the page? Resolute 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I will wait and see. By the way, I wrote Israeli breakfast when this project began. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Date tangling.png Dates appear tangled up in the lower right hand corner for me. Is there any way to untangle them? By the way, I had to post this using Opera, because IE would not allow the "reply" button to work. Pocket calculator operator (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pocket calculator operator: Which versions of IE and Opera are you using, and on which operating system? We have a few patches to help out IE8 already in the works, but I havn't seen your overlapping date issue yet. EBernhardson (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
EBernhardson (WMF): The date for each message is on the upper right of the message, but what I see is Tue 04 Feb 2014 04:3overlapping figures - identical in the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox Doug Weller talk 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, User:EBernhardson: It was Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18702. Opera was only used to upload the image and post this message, since the reply button was unresponsive in IE. FWIW, the dates are not tangled for me in Opera. However, just now, as I am typing this, Opera is slow and not very responsive, so the Opera version is 19.0.1326.56 - Restart Opera to update to version 19.0.1326.59 Pocket calculator operator (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
...also, the file usage section on the image above shows no pages using the image, despite its use above. I am going to unwatch this page now. Good luck in your endeavors. Pocket calculator operator (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Far too little text on the page and too much white space. The margins are also far too big so the lines are a lot shorter than on a normal talk page. It makes it very hard for me to read. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: Agreed, the spacing needs major adjustment. Way too much wasted area. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42:
The whitespace is a feature, see Wikipedia:Flow/Design FAQ#Why is there so much whitespace/padding? Doug Weller talk 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller: It's a bug, not a feature. Discussions involving many users trying to reach a consensus (not simply stating their views) are impossible using this much whitespace. Ypnypn (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ypnypn:
I agree that it's far too much whitespace, but when I read a FAQ saying that lots of whitespace is good for me, it looks like it was meant to be a feature. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller: I guess it was meant to be a feature, but turned out otherwise. :( Ypnypn (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is confusing. Could we have background shading or lines so I know to whom I am replying? Reddit, for example, typically follows a similar minimalist design.

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~~~~ Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal: that's a good idea; we have them for comments at this level (replies to replies) but not for replies to individual posts. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I can't rev/del, delete, etc. Can't see the page history or protect the page. Looks like I can move it but I'd rather not try. All this seems confusing. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: you should be able to revdel/delete/so on; it's triggered on individual threads or posts, though, via the buttons to the right of the post (you have to mouse over them before they show up). I find this very confusing myself, and a fix is in the works; they'll be in a little dropdown, the same as the delete options for topics. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): Then you had better tell people at ANI. How about the page history? Doug Weller talk 16:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller: that should be accessible through the 'history' tab as always; is it not for you? For what it's worth, the history as it currently stands doesn't include all the actions; we're working on that as we speak. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): The history is very scant, I also cannot click on an edit to see the diff, only be brought to the topic. If this is a bug will it be fixed, if this is by design, is that wise? People are very very used to being able to produce diffs from talk pages, and then link them in discussions. I know the permalink works in a similar way, but through the edit history, would in my mind be better. Liamdavies (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Liamdavies: both of those are bugs, yep, and both in the process of being fixed (the first one is actually in our pile-o'-work for the next two week sprint). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): Thanks for the quick response. Further to my original query, the user contribution history link/diff works quite well. But there are aspects of the layout I find confusing or unappealing. The info isn't provided in an instantly recognisable way, the name is above the post but the time below, without a clear line or demarcation it it appears as if the time of the previous post is far more linked to the name of the poster. (I hope that makes sense, in the posts above the time of my post seems to be for your post)
I also think there is far too much white space, a blank canvas is good, but why at 1366x768 is about a third of my screen on the right hand side completely blank? Why is there so much space between the post and the time stamp? The tooltips that hover the the right seem to far down, they should be aligned with the name on the top line, and the hover text doesn't show for the flag; to be honest I don't even know why they and the (talk | contribs) text aren't always visible right next to the posters name.
Although this sounds like a whinge, it isn't, it is honest good faith feedback, on the whole I like the idea, and the implementation seems ok for a beta, but I think the layout needs a lot of work and the minimalist look is too much, it needs more.
One last thing, is there a way to post pictures or embed wikitext? If not this is needed, talk pages can be used to float design ideas, and place images queues, and removing this function seems like a step backwards. Liamdavies (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Liamdavies: So, I don't interpret it as a whinge; I have issues with the layout too :p.
In order:
  1. What do you mean by "user contribution history link/diff"? The link to Special:Contributions? We've got some fixes in the works for that - it's not great, and doesn't tell you what you need to know.
  2. Too much whitespace indeed; we're going to expand the width of the page, for sure, and probably talk about some kind of preference-linked "wide view" that just auto-expands it as much as is needed. We have a meeting this coming Monday to work it out.
  3. You can embed both images and wikitext, the same as you would in any other page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): Yes, the link(s) from Special:Contributions, ie:
04:56, 7 February 2014 (topic) . . (+1,359)‎ . . Okeyes (WMF) (talk | contribs) added a comment.
It works quite well and shows the info needed (I would still like a diff, but hey, it works). Thanks for the prompt reply and good luck with the development. (you need to get the history section working so I can use the "thank" link next to edits/contributions) Liamdavies (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Liamdavies: gotcha; yeah, it'll be changed to something like "[timestamp] [user] added a comment to [the topic title]", so hopefully it'll be more useful. And yeah, we're building 'thanks' in directly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Having my user name appear at the end of each section is confusing, when I haven't yet commented on the page. Also, the "Article collaboration" topic appears to be embedded in the middle of the "Welcome to Flow" topic, and the latter topic resumes after the end of the former one. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

R'n'B: the article collaboration topic is just an image of the article collaboration topic that was inserted as a screenshot of a bug. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just seen someone start a new topic, and unlike normal talk pages it's at the top of the page. I wouldn't look for it there. I'm getting concerned that this experiment may impede the work of the project and may confuse the new user who posted the new topic. And of course I can't edit the page to move it to the bottom. I presume there will be some way of adding headers? Doug Weller talk 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: Yep; is there no header at the top of the talk page for you? (With the Wikiproject box, etc, etc). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): No page header, just Welcome to Wikiproject Breakfast. And can I move a post? Will I be able to strikethrough? Ah, wrong place for all this anyway. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller: oh, do you mean at the start of each thread? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF):
I see my problem. Silly me, I thought I was on the talk page, but I seem to be only in a section of the talk page. Or I was. Now I'm on the talk page which has no toc. Confusing. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller: Yeah, it really needs a notice saying that (and a link back to the talk page proper) :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, someone can do the equivalent of rev/del as usernamesuppressed suppressed a comment. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please please test Flow at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page, not here!

Give feedback on Flow either there, or ideally at WT:Flow where more people are watchlisting. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity (WMF): These posts of yours are exceedingly silly. MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Flow & pings[edit]

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! Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Go comment at Wikipedia talk:Flow. My response was about the whitespace. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: I give up on trying to post comments at Wikipedia talk:Flow - it is way too busy and appears to be only for those who have the time to follow every development. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech: I sympathize. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Update on Flow trial: what's new, what's next[edit]

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

Check out the screenshots of the first iteration and the second iteration of the visual design/UI of Flow, to see our progress.

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! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Diego (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (Edited by – SJ +)

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 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Quiddity (WMF): I wanted to send you a thanks notification, but I guess this is also onl in the plans? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech: Yeah, "thanks" is coming. Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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?

According to http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/breakfast-foods-bacon-coffee-pricier-article-1.1730020 :

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?)

and

Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year

Ottawahitech (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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. – SJ + 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


July 10 Flow Update[edit]

Please see News and Notes, at Wikipedia talk:Flow#July 10 Flow Update, for the major update today. Feedback there is appreciated. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Large blank area on right[edit]

I work on verticle monitors. The fact that this talk page does not use more of the width of the screen is unfortunate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Cool my signature still works but I need to remove these no wiki tags Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the full Board, you can click the "X" in the right-hand sidebar to collapse it. (A Topic page version, will come later). (and I hope to get a lot more feedback from you next week, in person :) In the future, please leave written feedback at mw:Talk:Flow or WT:Flow so as not to fill this WikiProject's talkpage with offtopic discussion. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to go back to normal talk page format?[edit]

(Topic title edited by Alsee (talk), Doug Weller talk)

I think it would be a good idea, especially after seeing that topics can't actually be deleted (see below). Doug Weller talk 13:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just been told about this, and I'm not sure what you meant about topics not being able to be deleted, but I'm sure that's something that can be fixed eventually (if it does in fact need to be fixed)... and after all the hard work I have had so easily deleted in Wikipedia, lack of deletions in general sound to me like a really GOOD thing right about now. :) Not arguing... just sharing an alternative point of view.
Now, I get the impression that we don't have to sign our replies in here, but I'm going to try it anyway... and at least see what happens. Gotta learn somehow.
~~~~ <-- (Edit) Ah, so that's what it did. Surrounded it in nowiki tags instead of expanding it to a signature. Now I wonder what would happen if I removed those nowiki tags. Okay.... gotta try it and find out. Will sign again here. --> ~~~~ DonaldKronos (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have not visited here in a long while (don't know how to find my last contribution to this wiki-test). Just happened to follow a link from the newly created Portal:Liquor. I find the comment about deletions at wikipedia by
= User:DonaldKronos intriguing. = Ottawahitech (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedians are having problems with it though, see e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg Fram (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Fram (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Fram (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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...." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense that a marginal case (cross-project discussion) would force us to change the behavior of the default, more general case, sweeping away some useful features with it.
The Contributions and Watchlist have a very clear model - show me in one place all the changes that me and others have made to the topics I care about. Breaking that model and forcing us to check two different streams would be a huge drawback.
The case of cross-project discussion could be solved without changing the current behavior in at least two ways:
  • Keep a separate track only for conversations that are cross-project, and show in the default Contributions and Watchlist changes for those conversations that belong to a single project; or,
  • Assign a primary project for all cross-project discussions, so that they are counted only for it. Discussions cross-posted to several projects could be shown in different ways. Diego (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Our contributions do appear in the standard locations (e.g. my contribs to the WT namespace include this topic). The discussion above/below about that, was about a bug that has since been resolved. It didn't have anything to do with cross-page/wiki content. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF) I checked the link you provided and I see that there is a [Hide] button on some of your contributions. Can you please explain (or provide a link to documentation that explains) this. Thank in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Basic docs are at mw:Flow/Administration#Hide. It is like "undo" (anyone can use it), but it leaves a small placeholder so that other people can see that an action occurred. (without us having to scrutinize every item in the history, or watch every change since page-creation, as we would with a wikitext talkpage). See this example where I've hidden the second of three posts (that post can be seen via the history page. It isn't linked directly from the placeholder to avoid drawing direct attention to it.). In addition to the [Hide] link, admins get [delete] and oversighters get [suppress] links in the history page. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I've posted about this elsewhere... the "hide" mechanism sucks.
  1. It makes it impossible for me to delete my own misplaced or otherwise screwed up posts. (Which happened up above.)
  2. A single "hidden" placeholder is a gigantic neon "click me" sign drawing absurd levels of attention to something that is supposedly hidden. (What percentage of people do you think clicked on my screwed up undeletable post above?)
  3. If someone(s) spams large numbers of comments, hiding them doesn't work. The message board is still crudded up with an unlimited spam of placeholders. Alsee (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
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. Fram (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Admins can delete topics? Please check WT:Flow and xaosflux's experiences... Fram (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It certainly isn't (wasn't?) a smooth process. — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Has this stuff been fixed? By the way, I can't see what I'm typing. I use a dark-on-light coloring. So I'll stop here. This is awful. Unusable. Elvey(tc) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, phab:T72662 (mentioned by @Quiddity (WMF):) is fixed. Any issues with deletion should also be fixed (if not, let us know).
We will take a look at the color issue. Sorry about that, we fixed a similar issue earlier (phab:T74188). I'm sorry it recurred. Tracked as phab:T105759. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What do User:Ottawahitech, User:Oaktree b, and User:Cirt think? They were also involved in the original discussion to turn it on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind it, took some getting used to. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And have any of them used it for project-related business since? Not recently, clearly. Fram (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And? Are you going to use one slightly lively discussion as evidence for anything? Good going... Fram (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Fram, I did not frequently participate in proj-beakfast discussions even before this wiki-test started. Neither did anyone else. So as far as I am concerned the test can continue.
I am disappointed though at the (very) slow rate of progress Ottawahitech (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


RESOLVED
Testing on the wrong page WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flow bug check[edit]

(Topic title edited by WhatamIdoing (talk), IKhitron (talk))

Hi. I hope I did not disturb here. I am adding a topic, you can ignore it. Thanks.

Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt IKhitron (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And now in VE:

Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt IKhitron (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course I was alerted to come check this out. Good luck with testing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, it is a bug. IKhitron (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see now I needed to do this in WT:Flow/Developer test page. Sorry for this. I can delete all this and start again there, if you want me to. IKhitron (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


RESOLVED
There is consensus to end the test on this page. The majority opinion is that Flow is a hindrance to discussion here and it is buggy. AlbinoFerret 09:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The WMF has been notified of the close above. Alsee (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I intend to formally appeal this close, but have no idea how to go about it, and my wiki-time is limited. Ottawahitech - who does not know how to sign this. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flow/Request_Flow_on_a_page

I have been preempted by @AlbinoFerret: who initiated a review of his own close at wp:AN see:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_close_review_of_RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F

The close review has ended. The close was confirmed as correct.[1] AlbinoFerret 09:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (Edited by Alsee (talk), Quiddity (WMF) (talk), Ottawahitech (talk))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?[edit]

The WMF wanted to test how the experimental WP:FLOW would work for actual use for actual editors. WikiProject Breakfast volunteered to be a test site. Here is the first post from February 2014:

Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. Please direct all feedback on the software to WT:Flow, to avoid distractions here. Thanks!
Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again!

After the first few months of trial, use of this board for project work declined to zero. The most recent post I can find for project Breakfast activity appears to be 14 months ago. In the last 14 months the only posts here have been a trickle of comments about Flow itself, and discussion of Flow bugs.

Is there a consensus for "things not working out", and to inform the WMF to "stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page"?

NOTE: This RFC was opened on Nov 29. It's now December 21st and it just dawned on me that the RFC-bot hasn't processed this RFC because it's inside Flow. I just requested the bot-maintainer to process it manually. Hopefully we can get it listed on RFC-feedback-request-service for at least a few days.

Purely technical advice for how to Close on a Flow board

Advice for any future RFC closer who may be unfamiliar with Flow.

  1. You can edit my post to remove the RFC template or other reason. Click the ... at top-right of my post.
  2. You should probably click the topmost ... (just below the star), select Summarize and write the close there.
  3. Flow has TWO editing modes. Visual Editor mode, and Wikitext mode. If you have any problems, try clicking the [[]] icon at the bottom right. That toggles the two modes.
Alsee (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (Edited by AlbinoFerret)
I just posted to wt-beakfast recently
In my opinion Flow should only be removed from w-proj Breakfast when/and if Flow is declared a failure. We badly need a Flow-type solution to talk pages. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I saw your post here. One a day ago, a comment about Flow. I had to go back 14 months to find anyone posting about Breakfast work. Alsee (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support as RFC author. Wikiproject Breakfast has been dead for over a year. It is impossible to know if Flow contributed to that death, and I have no idea if the project might revive after Flow is removed. However it is clear that this trial page is not severing the trial purpose anymore. There is zero use of this board of actual editors doing any actual work. The WMF can't collect any useful information from a corpse. Alsee (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

forget it -- I cannot even write a coherent message here, ARRRGGGHHHH Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This may not be the most important wikiproject, but I think that active Flow testing is over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot even tell from the threading who Cullen28 is agreeing with above, and I cannot cut&paste the user ID - must type it in. Is this the best the Flow-programmers can do?
Ottawahitech (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Alsee, the original poster. I supported the test of Flow here, but I think that it is safe to say that Flow seems to be opposed by the vast majority of experienced editors who encounter it. Innovative software upgrades will only be accepted if they do not interfere in any way, shape or form with the everyday work practices of experienced, productive encyclopedia editors. This is, after all, a ''successful'' though incomplete and imperfect project to create a free encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

replying to cullen328: <it is safe to say that Flow seems to be opposed by the vast majority of experienced editors who encounter it>

The question is are they opposing because the idea is flawed or because of the shoddy implementation? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

>are they opposing because the idea is flawed or because of the shoddy implementation?
From what I've seen the
WMF has hired skilled programmers. However there was zero community
input prior to building Flow. Management ordered the developers to build
a chatboard, and that's what they built. There was no attention to Talk
pages as a workplace rather than a chatboard,
and there was limited attention to integrating it with all of the wiki
aspects we expect (like page history). The design considerations were
backwards, and the software foundationlooks to be badly mismatched.
Would something
new be good? I dunno. The fact that talk pages *are* article pages is a
very powerful and integral part of what we do. If the editing community
were involved in a start-from-scratch design, I'm not sure where that
would go. I'm pretty certain it would not be patches to Flow. The WMF
has invested so much time and money building *this* that they feel the
need to upgrade it until it's a success. I fear there's a Sunk cost fallacy here.
By the way, if this
were a real Talk page I would refactor your comment and mine off to a
discussion section. Flow doesn't support that. We're stuck with
discussions of Flow itself crudding up the middle of the RFC !voting. Alsee (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: Productive experienced editors working to build an actual encyclopedia do not care at all about "good ideas" in the abstract, because such ideas are plentifully available, for a dime a dozen. They care only about the implementation of those ideas in the least disruptive fashion. Speaking for myself, I am a 63 year old guy who is it not a professional programmer but had no problem whatsover learning wikicode when I started writing and improving encyclopedia articles in 2009. I do not want to learn new software features that are less productive and less intuitive than old software features. I welcome any upgrades that are entirely intuitive and non-disruptive to existing editors. I will oppose ill-conceived and poorly-implemented make-work projects for professional programmers. This is not an employment program for coders. It is an encyclopedia created by volunteers, who are article writers and researchers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Cullen328.

However, the RFC is not about whether Flow should live or die -- it is only asking if its testing should be discontinued at W-proj breakfast. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. But I consider this an opportunity to express my opinion on the broader issue as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above -- well said!

BTW looks like the thanks work Ottawahitech (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought all I get is a thanks for the whole thread, not a particular permalink to a posting I made.. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I get a vertical green bar next to the individual comment that was thanked. It's a little subtle, but it scrolls to the correct spot in the thread and puts a ~2mm-wide medium-green bar on the left side of the comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support deactivating Flow here. Clearly not serving its purpose as a place for collaboration, and now that Flow development has been placed on hold and the WMF has given up on pushing it on wikis that don't want it, including this one, there's no reason to keep an anomaly around. BethNaught (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Flow development has been placed on hold" source please? Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please. If anything it's been shown to be a problem. ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The 14-month pause is not a concern for me. That is normal for most WikiProjects.

I support keeping Flow here until Flow development is officially done.

If any developer wants more use out of this board then I am still here to talk about breakfast. Appoint social media staff to bring people here with breakfast concerns to get more activity if the testing is useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And I had to come here to read your post, hovering over the diff on my watchpage showed nothing. ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, navpopup support is definitely wanted. (phab:T65713) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like flow has degraded recently - the older topics on wikiproject breakfast are threaded. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Rrtki2fpqy5qpiep&topic_showPostId=rrtki2fsv711dvu9#flow-post-rrtki2fsv711dvu9 Ottawahitech (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The software will only indent a thread, if we're replying to a post that is not at the bottom of an existing indent. I.e. it will try to keep new posts at the same level (not a constant diagonal, which would then require some kind of {{outdent}} system). It's a unique system, and many editors are finding it initially confusing; a few have explicitly said they like it, once they understand how it works. It will indent up to 8 levels currently. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Threading is still possible, as shown in this thread.

I don't see any point in discontinuing it. I've stopped posting here because I haven't been working on breakfast-related articles this year, not because of the page format.

On the broader question, and speaking with my "WikiProject Council" hat on, a sitewide RFC is inappropriate. This is the project's talk page, and the decision about how to handle their talk page lies with them, and not with a bunch of semi-random non-participants. In addition to Ottawahitech, Cullen, Doug Weller, and Blueraspberry, it would be interesting to hear from @Anna Frodesaik:, @Oaktree b: and @Northamerica1000: (and others, but these are the names I remember from past discussions and haven't noticed above). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, how can I thread this posting. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well it appears I could thread my posing in response to User:WhatamIdoing above, but not the one to User:BethNaught below Ottawahitech (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: "sitewide RFC" didn't work. The RFC bot can't handle flow so it never got processed. The advertisement was here and on the talk page for WP:Flow. Alsee (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Per WP:CONLIMITED, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. If the enwp community wishes that Flow nowhere be used on its site, that should be up to it at large. It just happens that the use of Flow on this site is epitomised here.

Incidentally, I tried to add a link to CONLIMITED. When I typed the square brackets, I was confronted with a ridiculously overcomplicated add link interface and had to first escape it then move to wikitext mode, multiplying by at least twenty the typing time. That's an example of why simple wikimarkup is just better. BethNaught (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Beth, there is no "consensus on a wider scale" about whether Flow should be removed entirely, and an RFC on the disposition this page is not an appropriate forum to determine what that wider consensus might be.
This RFC is about this page. The primary purpose of this page is to facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users. Your opinion – and mine – about the overall value of Flow is therefore much less relevant than the opinions of the actual members of that group about what they would prefer for their communication methods.
(If you want to explain how pressing the Escape key and clicking on the wikitext icon took longer than it would have taken to type 2,200 words, then I recommend posting a note at Wikipedia talk:Flow.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The primary purpose of this page is to facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users.
As I noted in the original RFC notice, there has been no project activity in FOURTEEN MONTHS. The "identifiable small group of users" was zero.
If you would like to challenge any close on this RFC on the basis that I advertised it too widely, you are welcome to do so. Although I suggest you put on earmuffs and mittens first. Grin. Alsee (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(ta"facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users."
I am afraid that this RFC has only served to draw in editors who have no involvement and are only pushing their own agenda. " Ottawahitech (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First, you have to work out how to escape it. Second, I meant time to type the link.
  • I am minded to initiate a wider RfC. It's long past time the community actually made a formal decision about this. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@BethNaught: It seems you have lost interest in initiating a wider RfC so why is this software trial being discontinued without proper discussion or consensus? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sort of RFC you are proposing, but per guideline Appropriate Notification Editors who have asked to be kept informed, please inform me if you do start a Flow related RFC. I would be interested in reviewing any Flow-related proposal, and providing input based on my experience. Alsee (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught:, If I recall correctly there were other wikiprojects besides Breakfast that joined the trial at roughly the same time (does anyone remember when that was?) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire. AFAIK that's the only other one. BethNaught (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There's also, rather out of the blue, Wikipedia:Article request workshop, a seemingly one-man project by @Harej:, and a good example of what is wrong with Flow. I haven't found any discussion about creating that Flow page. There used to be another Flow page at some editor retention project, but as far as I remember that project has failed and folded. And then there is the main Flow test page, which is no longer a Flow page despite the best efforts of Jdforrester (WMF). Fram (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I found the "discussion" for deploying Flow at Article Request Workshop. Sigh.
It happened on Phabricator.
  1. User:Harej asked for his own personal Flow board. He asked for it in Wikipedia namespace! I quote: I think this would be the first Flow board to not be a talk page (though I suppose the talk page should also be a Flow, for consistency's sake)
  2. There was discussion that there had to be community buy-in before making any Flow deployments.
  3. The Flow Project manager decided that since this was a non-existent page with no pre-existing users, there was no need for any community buy-in.
It looks like it was less than 24 hours from initial request to approval and deployment.
I'm gonna nominate it for XFD. The original user used it for a whopping three days, and abandoned it 8 months ago. There have been three fruitless posts since then. Alsee (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That is quite outrageous (but not unexpected). Progress at the WMF seems to be extremely slow and often regresses instead. If not XfD'ed, it should be fully protected as a non-permitted Flow page and a security hazard (all Flow pages are a serious security hazard, but unwatched ones even more so). Fram (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(Looks like I can properly thread this post)
Talking of security risks.. I just witnessed something strange: I have two notification boxes in my toolbar: In the first (Your Alerts) I get the regular notifications such as thanks, articles link, pings etc., in the second (Your Messages) I get FLOW notifications. When I logged in earlier, though, a regular ping was sitting in my Flow box. It has now been moved to the box where I would normally expect it.
Just wondering if it is just one of those flukes, or has some manually interfered with my boxes, hmmm… Ottawahitech (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(but I cannot properly thread this one - though others who post a reply to my previous post now can)
The errant message was a ping from someone mentioned earlier in this thread. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, it's a good test, that MfD. My standard option for Flow pages is to hide the header, as it creates loads of empty space right down to the bottom of the page (if one ever is patient enough to reach that). So, when I open the article request workshop, I don't see that it is up for deletion. Seems rather problematic, no? And of course, only having watchlisted one topic, I also don't get a notification on my watchlist. Fram (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I generally keep Flow set to wide mode too, and yeah I had the generic thought that the system was screwed. If you default to wide mode then you'll NEVER get to see any of the header info. I hadn't specifically thought about deletion notices, but yeah.... that's a killer example of how wide mode is just plain broken. Alsee (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: The MFD has been filed. Note that Twinkle choked a bit. Twinkle was unable to post the deletion notice onto a Flow page. I manually posted the deletion notice in the About this board sidebar. And surprise surprise, I found a new Flowbug. Depending on the browser zoom level, the right side of the template and some of the text disappears off screen. Click here and play with CTRL-plus / CTRL-minus. For me the problem shows up at 110% 120% and 130% zoom. At 140% the sidebar jumps to the top, which I guess is the intended behavior. That allows the "too large" template to render properly. Alsee (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The above was a reply to BethNaught, not to Ottawahitech. Is there any way to see this? Fram (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
And this is a reply to Ottawahitech. Spot the difference (or not, of course). Fram (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This page was converted in early 2014.

I don't remember the name of the other WikiProject that signed up for Flow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire is the other WikiProject HHill (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Flow is dead in the water. It's not going to help this WikiProject by remaining here buggy and unloved. The test should be discontinued.  — Scott talk 18:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope Flow is not dead!!! If wikipedia cannot solve its problem of disfunctional talkpages, it will be the end of it, no doubt in my mind. And yes, I know there are editors here who think there is no problem with talkpages, but if so, why do I have to spend as much time formatting discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture as I do actually participating in the discussion itself, and why are experienced editors refusing to continue participating because (for example) "I will not be watching this page further; the formatting is topsy-turvy, and the discussion is simply too large. …-BDD (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)"
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=692423025&oldid=692422358} Ottawahitech (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I participate in plenty of productive talk page discussions, spend almost no time formatting those talk pages, and simply move on when the conversation gets repetitive, tendentious and TLDR. I have much better things to do with my time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I notice you participate a fair bit in "voting" at wp:Requests-for-adminship (repetitive/tendentious/TLDR?) but I believe you did not participate in Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform. Are you aware, for example, that wp:watch-lists will used to promote RFA discussions if not enough editors object (I think?)
What’s worse are you aware that Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform has been viewed only 494 times since it started two months ago (an average of about 8 views/day), despite widespread promotion? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Despite the problems with the RfA process, I do not consider my participation at RfAs to be repetitive, tendentious or too long to read. I find most RFAs to be easily manageable even if a few editors act like jerks. In almost all cases, I read the discussion easily, evaluate, decide, make a single comment, and move on. It lasts a week, and sometimes we actually get a useful new administrator out of it.
On the other hand, I find the debates about RfA reform to be extremely lengthy and complex, usually unproductive, and filled with repetitive comments. Sometimes I read without commenting. I read a lot of things without commenting. If the people who spend lots of time in those debates actually accomplish something useful, then that is wonderful and I will support it. I feel no obligation to chime in on every debate, although I will usually express my opinion if asked in a one-on-one context.
I favor publicizing RfAs (and other important governance discussions) through watchlist notices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Any discussion with more than a handful of participants is bound to become wp:repetitive, wp:tendentious, and wp:TLDR. That does not mean that it is not important to participate. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a volunteer and comment where I choose to comment, and only there. I choose to comment where I find the discussion interesting and where I believe that my comments may possibly be useful and productive. I feel ZERO obligation to comment in other situations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does having this page as a Flow page help Flow in any way? No, the traffic here is way too low to be of any use for Flow development.

Does having this page as a Flow page help the Breakfast Project in any way? No, it hasn't attracted additional Breakfast-related traffic or project-minded editors, and hasn't made any Breakfast-related discussions any smoother, faster, ... On the other hand, it has caused this page to have a ratio of Flow-related discussions vs. Breakfast-related discussion of about 5 to 1, making it a lot less interesting as a page for the discussion of the Breakfast project.

No benefit, clear disadvantages, only one possible conclusion: terminate the test and go back to standard talk page format. Fram (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the best arguments for needing a flow-like tool is the prevention of accidental/malicious editting-over of one's comment by another editor.

I just witnessed two such occasions one in an RFA and another  in a CfD Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first link looks like merely poor diff software. Improving diff is one of the big items listed at the WMF Community Wishlist project. The second link seems to show some poorly placed replies, but I think this RFC demonstrates that Flow is a far worse problem. I'd give a cookie and an aspirin to whoever closes this. It's going to be a headache sorting out who is replying to who, and sorting out which of these posts are individual !votes. If I had to close this I would probably resort to ignoring the Flow structure and work from scratch. I'd make a text file listing participants' names, and just copy-paste !vote-comments and key issues to there.

P.S. Another reason I support converting this page back to Talk is that the WMF promises they have software to convert Flow back to Talk if needed, preserving all discussions. There are serious concerns that the result of trying to convert Flow-to-Talk will be an unreadable mess. I'm reluctant to let Flow anywhere near any important page, especially something like Village Pump or Administrator Noticeboard, if a Flow rollback will leave an unreadable record of discussions. This page was a test deployment. Converting back to Talk will be a very valuable part of that test. We need to find out how well conversion back to Talk does/doesn't work here. Alsee (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OK here is another one from wp:vpp https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=next&oldid=695415858
Looks like the comment from User:Fences and windows has been removed completely?
(sorry no way to unbold in FLOW?)
+ another one from talk-wikiproject council https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=prev&oldid=696650404 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee, Looks like in the current implementation I am allowed to edit your post above mine. I just clicked the ... beside your box and it opened up in edit mode (no I did not modify it btw).

The people who programmed this sure did not do a very good job, did they? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame the WMF, grin. The WMF made a list of "expectations" that people have for normal forum software, and one of their items was that being able to edit other people's comments was extremely unexpected. They initially built it so that only admins had that ability. Many editors strongly argued to preserve the ability to edit other people's comments, both for practical and wiki-culture reasons(*). The WMF decided it wasn't worth fighting over that detail. They made it a configuration options for who could edit comments. I believe default is currently set to Autoconfirmed users. I'm sure the WMF gleefully re-restrict it to admins if the community gave an ok on it. Strike, possibly unfair portrayal, I was recalling some quite old comments I read.

(*) Practical and cultural reasons:

  • Practical: If you look at the top of the RFC, my original post has a collapsed section with technical advice for closers. In item #1 I noted You can edit my post to remove the RFC template or other reason. Click the ... at top-right of my post. Grin. We don't often need to edit other's comments, but it is sometimes a nice and helpful freedom to have that technological wall out of the way.
  • Cultural: Editors are granted a powerful ability to edit almost everything, and we expect editors to use that ability collaboratively and responsibly. When editors discover they can edit other comments, I believe there's often a powerful realization that it would be a very bad idea to do that. There's no need for a new user to read a rules page saying they can get blocked for that sort of abuse. It is a powerful signal that we have a very different culture here, a culture where people are expected to behave themselves and respect other people's comments. I believe that also encourages more respect for other editors as well. Sometimes things can get heated here, but we almost never get the flamewars that obliterate almost any other forum where people discuss controversial topics. Alsee (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alsee, You must live in a different world than I do. I have had my comments messed with on talk-pages almost from day one. In one case at least, it was deliberate and I was warned to keep quiet about it. And no I was not being abusive, just expressing my views in a respectful way. I have also seen this done to others. For example it is common to simply delete unpopular posts when hatting them would suffice.

To make this short, if FLOW will allow us to edit others comments (which happens mostly on the sly because few check the history) I see no reason to support it.

[demonstration edit] Ottawahitech (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (Edited by Quiddity (WMF) (talk))

@Ottawahitech: Flow will leave an indicator if someone other than the original author last-edited a comment, and will send the original author a notification. I'll edit your post, to demonstrate. (Both are improvements on, and not feasible in, the wikitext contentmodel discussions). Editing someone else's comment is a useful option to have available, for things like fixing broken links or wikimarkup. (Instead of needing to make a new comment asking the original author to do so)

@Alsee: No, there is no desire from anyone on the current team, to re-restrict comment editing. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Quiddity (WMF): I believe this is much better solution than the current situation where few if any are aware that talk-comments have been removed or modified
BTW any chance of fixing the threading which will insert my reply here before Alsee's apology which right now follows unindented? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment was not accurate to the current situation. I read comments that restricted-editing was the preferred setting, but thinking about it, those comments were rather old. They were from the timeframe when the WMF agreed to enable comment editing. Alsee (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is all very well and good, but continues to not have anything to do with breakfast; which is a strong argument for removing Flow from this page, because its presence acts as a huge noise magnet and detracts from getting any relevant work done on the actual topic.  — Scott talk 11:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I completed a breakfast related article Joe's Special a few days ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I started a new topic on Joe's special for those interested in Breakfast discussion.
...but got a [dbccce17 Exception Caught: Undefined is not a valid UUID] when I tried to post the permalink to the new Topic (correct lingo?) Ottawahitech (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
so why not start a new topic on this instead of posting offtopic? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ scott Just wondering if you are interested in participating in breakfast discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to close this now. AlbinoFerret 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As consensus has been found to remove Flow I have requested that at Phabricator.  — Scott talk 15:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WHY? You don't seem to have any interest in participating in this trial, do you? So why impose your views on those of us who have spent hours and days trying to get this thing going? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe your action was justified. How mamy partipants here had any connection to wikiproject BF? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ user:AlbinoFerret

A consensus of SIX editors is all that is needed to remove a major software test from wikipedia????????????????? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, as this RFC is formatted, the question is to remove it from this wikiproject, not all of WP. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: So, are you saying that 6 editors most of whom have never participated in this trial on this wikiproject can shut it down just because? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Because its a WP:RFC, please read the page to further understand what a RFC is. RFC 's are specifically designed to allow any editor in good standing in the community to comment on a question. They are used most of the time when editors on the page can not come to agreement. There have been questions about the scope of the question, I have clarified the close. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I ask again : What consensus are you referring to? By whom? Do you mean the six editors who parachuted into this wikiproject without knowing anything about its background? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is found by including all participants who commented in the RFC. I have provided the basis for this, WP:RFC. AlbinoFerret 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: Already responded on your talk page: User_talk:AlbinoFerret#Your_summary_of_.22RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F.22 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This is going round in circles, I think I have answered all your questions. If you have any policy based questions, making sure to include the policy with a link, leave a message on my talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ottawahitech#Flow_.2F_projectbreakfast_RFC Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a dedicated test page for Flow, and there is a talk page for this project. What is not clear is why Ottawahitech and others are so insistent that this page must be used as a Flow trial page for an unlimited time, when the previous year of testing here hasn't really achieved anything, and the activity here is way too low to be useful information anyway. Apart from a principled stand that "outsiders" shouldn't decide what talk page format or system is used by this project (which is an incorrect position anyway, as the general consensus is not to use Flow on enwiki at the moment), what purpose does this protest have. Has Flow made this project and the collaboration on it one tiny bit better? No, not at all, all extra traffic on this page is Flow-related and the project talk is few and far between.

Use this page for it's real purpose, project discussion, and use the Flow test page for that purpose, but don't mix the two when after a year it has become clear that it has no positive effects anyway for either cause. Fram (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I concede defeat, just another waste of time and effort on my part. Thank you to Alsee. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Ottawahitech has limited time and knowledge of RFC reviews I have started one here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_close_review_of_RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F Editors here may wish to add comments. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I started a response, but please don't push it yet. I am having difficulty tallying up those who formed the so-called consenus, So far I have counted 3 solid opposes.

Also, please don't count me as a non-member. I am not registered as such, but I believe this is only a technicality. I have been involved in project right from its fomation, and probably have as much involvement in it as anyone (other than user:Northamerica1000) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree with your comment about how difficult it was to sort out the tally. Running an RFC inside Flow was a disaster. Just prior to the close I wanted to figure out what the situation was. I carefully reviewed every post in the discussion as if if I were going to close it. Here is the basic participant list I came up with:

Support

  • Alsee: Support as RFC author
  • Cullen328: I agree 100%... Flow testing is over.
  • BethNaught: Support deactivating Flow here.
  • Doug Weller: Please. If anything it's been shown to be a problem.
  • Scott: The test should be discontinued.
  • Fram: terminate the test and go back to standard talk page format.

Oppose

  • Ottawahitech: Flow should only be removed from w-proj Breakfast when/and if Flow is declared a failure.
  • Bluerasberry: I support keeping Flow here until Flow development is officially done.
  • WhatamIdoing: I don't see any point in discontinuing it.

No position

  • HHill - One comment, nothing resembling a !vote.
  • Quiddity (WMF) - Apparently posting in an official capacity. I see nothing resembling an attempt to !vote.

6 clear support, 3 clear oppose, 2 non-participant comments. Alsee (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

try again? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually do not like taking a public discussion such as this one and moving it to a semi-private user-talkpage, where it may be tampered with by the user. I have made an exception here because it appears this page may soon disappear from public view, and have communicated with editors about what is happening on my own talkpage. See: User_talk:Ottawahitech#I_will_be_appealing_the_close_of_projectbreakfast_RFC

Tried to respond to Alsee's post above but after spending a fair bit of time composing a post I get

[2cda5ba5] Exception Caught: Undefined is not a valid UUID Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech:, bug reported as Phab:T123264. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This page converted into wikitext[edit]

This page has now been converted into wikitext, and the Flow version has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast/Flow archive and (has or will be) protected. We recommend keeping it, for detailed attribution purposes, and to enable us all to compare the before-and-after which might be desirable. However, local admins are free to delete that page if desired (as discussed in the earlier section).

Thank you again, to everyone who helped out over the months, with testing, feedback, bug-reports, and suggestions. I'm sorry it hasn't worked out better, and that it took longer than expected to convert back. Hopefully this page can now return to breakfast-focused collaboration, and Flow discussions can return to WT:Flow, to minimize distractions here and to help centralize further feedback there. --Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for posting -- I sure hope no admin will take it upon themselves to delete the archives of the wp:Flow experiment, which btw was closed with very few of the project's participants ever chiming in. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me