I think it would be a good idea, especially after seeing that topics can't actually be deleted (see below).
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast
About this board
Do we want to go back to normal talk page format?
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. --> ~~~~
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
The original thought was that this WikiProject's members seem to be experienced Wikipedians, and can tolerate any kind of problem, and actually recognize when something is broken as compared to when something does not work just because of problems operating the site.
I like the idea of talk page reform. The experiment here has surfaced a lot of problems with WP:FLOW (the experimental talk page format used here) which I would not have understood otherwise.
If new Wikipedians were coming here and having problems, I would be sympathetic, but I would like FLOW to be tested and I cannot think of a better place to do it than here.
Do you object to FLOW being tested? Do you object to it being tested here? Can you suggest any better place to test it? I am still happy to be a FLOW volunteer tester here on this page, even though I acknowledge that it is not ready to be introduced to the general Wikipedia population.
New Wikipedians are having problems with it though, see e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg
I fail to recognize what happened here. Does this mean that posts in FLOW, to be deleted, go through the page deletion process in Wikipedia?
Also, did this happen in WikiProject Breakfast? Is there any way to see how that post is tied to this forum?
I cannot see who made that post. Its history on the deletion page leads back to WikiProject Breakfast. Ah, is that the best way to see the forum of origin for the post?
I agree that it is all confusing but I am not convinced that new users are bothered. Even the most popular WikiProjects are low-traffic with new users, and this is not a popular WikiProject.
Um, it happened here, and it was a new user who was bothered by it, so... Yes, seeing the history and what happened where is difficult, as is deleting things on Flow pages (or complete Flow pages).
Testing can be done at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page (or at mediawiki). The tests hare don't help this project and aren't necessary (yet) for the Flow project, which has plenty of issues to solve before any further rollout to projects, user talk, article talk, ... is realistic.
That is a great response which I feel merits an answer from the developers. It does seem that in many ways Flow is not usable, despite it being usable in some contexts.
Thanks. To give you an idea of the problems; just check "contributions" (top right of the screen, i.e. your own contributions). Do you see the edits you made in this topic? I don't see the ones I made, so I guess it will be the same for you.
This and many similar problems with history, contributions, and watchlist (and so on) have been noted on the Flow feedback pages since (at least) February.
Hmm... that is really strange, and a great reason to prevent rolling this out where new Wikipedians are, but not so horrible that I would keep it away from controlled trials with experienced Wikipedians if that were necessary for development.
It is working well enough for this conversation. I just would not want any new user to have this experience.
I was under the impression (perhaps wrong, of course) that Flow contributions weren't supposed to be tracked as part of your local contributions, but via a separate project. This seems like a very sensible system for software that does cross-project discussions. Otherwise, you'd be left saying, "Where'd that post get counted? The discussion was linked to 40 wikis, so it could be any of them. Hmm, maybe I should check Meta first...."
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.
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) 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,
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.
I've posted about this elsewhere... the "hide" mechanism sucks.
- It makes it impossible for me to delete my own misplaced or otherwise screwed up posts. (Which happened up above.)
- 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?)
- 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.
Another nice example of throwing away the standard method for the exception (99% of the talk pages will never be cross-wiki). And, of course, that exception doesn't work yet anyway. Plus, which "separate project"? Perhaps something that should be discussed with the different communities before it gets rolled out and can't be rolled back "because that would cause too many problems, but we won't do it again, promised, this time for real". We are already stuck with the Topic namespace (where and when has that been announced), which is a huge black hole at the moment.
I've filed the contributions issue as bugzilla:70662. (The contributions are showing up in the correct sub-section if I use the drop-down to select a namespace, but for some contributions, for some editors, they're not showing up in the "All" section.)
@Dougweller: Admins can delete topics, but only via the link in the action-menu (but the flow team plans to add [undo/delete] links into the history page.) .
Re: the issue that Eddymason experienced, sadly I didn't see the deletion discussion because of the broken manual ping, though I did talk with him on my talkpage earlier about it, and I believed him to be fine with it. - Deleting the topic would not actually fix the issue he is experiencing, but I shall re-enquire of the dev when those confusing page-initialization edits (not actual content edits) are going to disappear from our contributions. HTH.
Admins can delete topics? Please check WT:Flow and xaosflux's experiences...
It certainly isn't (wasn't?) a smooth process.
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.
I don't mind it, took some getting used to.
And have any of them used it for project-related business since? Not recently, clearly.
A low level of comments is pretty typical for this small project.
Comments on the old talk-page system (for the 6 months before Flow-related discussions started):
- May 2013: 3 comments
- June 2013: 3 comments
- July 2013: 0 comments
- August 2013: 5 comments
- September 2013: 3 comments
- October 2013: 1 comment
Comments in Flow for the same months (excluding hidden comments):
- May 2014: 6 comments
- June 2014: 0 comments
- July 2014: 17 comments (1 about Flow)
- August 2014: 0 comments
- September 2014: 16 so far (but 15 are about Flow)
That looks like approximately a 70% increase in traffic year over year.
And? Are you going to use one slightly lively discussion as evidence for anything? Good going...
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
Welcome to Flow
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!
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): I get this weird premonition that this is one of the reasons why you should not go ahead with this design.
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.
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): 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
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
...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.
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.