Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Anomalocaris (talk | contribs) m fix table tags that should be deleted lint errors and misnested tags; <B>...</B> can't wrap multiple blocks, so use <div style="font-weight: bold;">...</div> |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 6:
(Note: The Board header diff history is accessible (from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flow/Developer_test_page&action=history main history]).)
[[Category:Wikipedia Flow]] (Board description edited by [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]), <small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub>, [[User:Mattflaschen-WMF|Mattflaschen-WMF]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen-WMF|talk]]), [[Special:Contributions/204.27.61.36|204.27.61.36]] ([[User talk:204.27.61.36|talk]]), [[User:Michael Unwonain|Michael Unwonain]] ([[User talk:Michael Unwonain|talk]]), [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]), [[Special:Contributions/31.171.249.127|31.171.249.127]] ([[User talk:31.171.249.127|talk]]), [[User:Milanarashidova3|Milanarashidova3]] ([[User talk:Milanarashidova3|talk]]), [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]), [[User:ZOKIDIN5|ZOKIDIN5]] ([[User talk:ZOKIDIN5|talk]]), [[User:ZOKIDIN4|ZOKIDIN4]] ([[User talk:ZOKIDIN4|talk]]), [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]), [[User:Anders Feder|Anders Feder]] ([[User talk:Anders Feder|talk]]), [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]), [[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:EBernhardson (WMF)|talk]]), — [[User:Hhhippo|<
__TOC__
Line 452:
:[[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]]: Signatures aren't needed in Flow, because posts are auto-attributed. No more {{tl|unsigned}}!
:Linking in the title is a bit more complicated. There are details at [[bugzilla:57950]] and [[bugzilla:57153]] (note: bugzilla is down for maintenance this afternoon, so I can't easily remind myself of what it contains exactly). Basically, it requires a "limited parser" to only accept certain things (not output full templates, or magicwords, etc), just like the "edit-summary" field does. So, not yet, but probably in the future. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]: Signatures are not the same as attribution, and 'not needed' is not the same as 'no reason to have it'. I don't think it's urgent to have signatures in Flow, but I don't see a reason for disallowing them either. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
:[[User:Hhhippo|Hhhippo]]: Hmm, signatures are one of those mine-fields where everyone has strong opinions.
:Personally (not officially), I follow [[Wikipedia:Use the default signature]] for all the reasons there.
Line 465:
:(Sidenote: the GMT instead of UTC in the exact timestamp, is [[bugzilla:59919]]) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]: Okay, thanks. Now I know where to find the "time" timestamps (I prefer these over the "elapsed" timestamps, as they are relatively fixed). [[User:Epicgenius|epicgenius -]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]: Yes, it's a complicated topic. If you ask ten people you will get at least twenty opinions, and entire communities might come to different conclusions. I think this is one of the cases where the software should leave the decision to each community. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]: I'm fine with UTC, and can live with either relative and absolute time as defult. What I'm really missing is an easy way to spot unread posts.
:Regarding user preferences: there is a time zone setting already, so in principle that could be used instead of server time.
:Regarding mouseovers: don't all the nice mouseover effects imply that the same interface is ''not'' intended for mobile? If that's the case we should have enough space for more nesting levels, right? ;-) — [[User:Hhhippo|<
Now can you figure out which of my two comments above is a reply to what, apart from the content? And if yes, can you tell me how? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
==Size issues==
Line 739:
*The diff link in the corresponding user contributions yields a similar error.
— [[User:Hhhippo|<
:[[User:Hhhippo|Hhhippo]]: Yup, all those are being worked on, with much cursing (and documenting of the pain points) at mediawiki's many systems that are almost-identical-but-not-quite. Thanks for the specific notes. :) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,546:
* When finding the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow/Developer_test_page?action=history board history] on foot, that page has a working "talk" tab, but a dysfunctional "project page" tab.
— [[User:Hhhippo|<
:What skin are you using? We have a known issue where the watchlist star interferes with other elements at the top of the page. The links and tabs work for me in Vector.
:The header history should be part of the board history, which is in accessible from the normal History tab and is the usual <code>?action=history</code>. I fixed the bad link to "main history" in the Flow board header, and my edit appears in the history, so perhaps that comment is obsolete.
Line 1,552:
::I'm using MonoBook, should have mentioned that. I think the tabs are a known issue there. Yes, the watchlist star's positioning can be problematic, too. Plus, it's just a green star, no sign that it's a link or a button, and why green? But I guess that's a design decision.
::Yes, found the header history entries in the board history. At some point it would be nice to have, as an alternative to the full board history, histories per topic, and one for only the header. And also prev/next links in the diff view. But that's really not urgent now.
::About my original comment: I tried again, and "new topic" notifications get marked as read if you click them, but not if you visit the new topic or the board by other means. Maybe that's what the header means by "they don't get automatically marked as read". I'm not sure they should though. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::We do already have per-topic history pages, eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:S2399mivp8txsu3m&action=history this topic]. :) The link is in the topic's action-menu.
::A just-header-history section is planned, as well as the needed prev/next links in the diff view.
::Yup, the monobook tab issue is getting fixed [https://trello.com/c/l5tkRQbl/ right now], by removing the custom watchlist-star.
::I've updated the header message with a more complete explanation of the 3 ways to mark a flow-notification as read. (Note that just visiting the board will not mark anything as read, because they don't want to accidentally mark something that you merely scrolled-past as being read.) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
::Great, thanks. About clearing the notifications: Do alerts really get cleared now just by viewing the flyout? Is that a good idea? I feel another OBOD discussion coming up... — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Hmm, I got a notification about a new topic, so I purposely went to the page via another notification, so viewing another topic: counter still at "1". Then I went up to the board using the breadcrumbs, and that marked the notification as read, even though I didn't explicitly visit the new topic.
::I'm not sure what would be the optimal behaviour, just letting you know that what you describe and what I see is not exactly the same. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Hmm, I had a notification about "''User'' created a '''new topic'''". Viewing the board didn't mark it as read. Visiting the topic alone did mark it as read and the Echo badge counter decremented. So it works for me.
::If you want to troubleshoot further, right-click > Copy Link Location of the URLs you're visiting. Also, on each page click the Echo [NN] badge to display the flyout, because a) its two counts in parentheses are rebuilt on the fly so may be more accurate than cached page state; and b) we're trying to track down situations where the JavaScript fails to run and the flyout doesn't appear.
Line 1,568:
::*MW: – (0e560b8) 01:41, 13 September 2014
::*EN: – (d88dfb6) 01:37, 13 September 2014
::Oh, and wouldn't it be nice to be able to see the preview and the edit box at the same time? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::FWIW: I managed to reproduce the behaviour described above on enwiki:
::* got 1 new notification, flyout says 1 message, 0 alerts, the new message is about a new topic on WT:Flow/Developer test page
Line 1,574:
::* Visited [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:S2399mivp8txsu3m&fromnotif=1#flow-post-s2evr3kgjrzljcan another topic on the same board]: no change
::* Went to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow/Developer_test_page the board] via the breadcrumbs on the topic view: notification counter reset, flyout changed to all read.
::But as I said above, it's working as intended on MW, so it will probably work here tomorrow. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Re: "able to see the preview and the edit box at the same time?" - that's filed at [[bugzilla:67258]] [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 18:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,664:
::A new section is still in the same topic, easy to see and digest. Different topics will get spread over the page, making it much harder to see the relations between them. And will cause less trouble with "I split this off' "no, it belongs with the previous topic" edit wars. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::I don't see how restricting the number of indentation levels is forcing people to stay on topic, or to split off new topics. People just stay on the third level and stop caring about the actual structure. In the worst case they'll get used to not caring about the structure from the beginning. They just add a comment at the end, just like you do in verbal discussions, which are intrinsically one-dimensional.
::For a written discussion, and with a software that's just being built, we would in principle have the chance to do much better than just a linear string of comments, we're just lacking a brilliant idea on how to do it. More indentation levels would help, but it doesn't fell like the optimal solution either. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::@Hhhippo I'd say we can give a chance at collapsing replies beyond the third level by default, with buttons for instant expanding the next level in full or all levels hanging from the current comment.
::This is done at Slashdot and works reasonably well, although there you can set "important" messages to auto-show by default (based on the number of positive moderation received).
::Also, based on my experience with LiquidThreads, there should be a way to get a diff of only those comments (with edit summaries!) that have been written/edited since the last visit, irregardless of where they're placed. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 09:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::About collapsing: yes, that would be great. As a first step, to be able to collapse on any level when reading. An then one could think of various additional features: remember what I collapsed, set default state by level or by editor's choice, uncollapse chains with new comments...
::About diffs for unvisited changes: yes, either a diff, or having all new/changed comments marked with a colored bar, and a button 'jump to next unread'. That would be a killer feature, at least for people like me, who currently tend to read only the diffs for high-traffic pages, and try to imagine the rendered version. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
==Adjustment might be needed to Topic links==
Line 1,706:
::If I did it 'properly' -- searching for incoming links in all namespaces (and updating any I found), or adding an {{tl|anchor}} tag with the old heading (with the hopes that it works properly for any non-ascii characters) -- that would turn a simple title-change into a multistep and potentially troublesome task. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::Another attempt at replying in a ticker-tape box so excuse any errors. That 'properly' sounds like a job for a tool/gadget that would take care of renaming while leaving behind an anchor properly formatted including any non-ascii characters, much like Twinkle takes care of all of the (far more complex) steps when e.g. nominating for deletion. It could even be added to Twinkle, probably quite easily. That it's not happened (that I know of) suggests that it's not something people have considered a problem that needs fixing. <small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 21:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::You get a 'proper' edit box when viewing the board rather then only the topic. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::But then I have to wade through all the threads to find the right one; with no index and thread titles being less than helpful it's harder than it should be. Besides the links on my watchlist bring me here. <small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 21:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::Sure, it's a bug that needs to be fixed. I just wanted to point out the possibility, so you can pick your poison ;-) — [[User:Hhhippo|<
I agree that the current solutions are not optimal, Flow links because they're not human-readable and wikilinks because they're not permanent. The amazon model is interesting, but somehow just an ugly way of piping. It doesn't protect you from offensive content since the poster might hide it behind a nice, made-up topic title, which is ignored by the software.
How about this: we use the Flow links we have now, but teach the software to display them using the current topic title instead of the ID, some kind of implicit piping. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
:I say not have the cryptic numbers in links at all. All would be Topic:Name. Changing the topic would rename the link and leave a redirect, which could be deleted through [[WP:RFD|Redirects for Discussion]] if need be. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 20:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::Would that mean we can use each topic title only once, over all WMF wikis? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::No - if it's a repeat, the software would automatically add (2), or whatever number, to the end, just like MS Windows does when you copy a file with the same name. The vast majority of topic titles probably wouldn't see more than 10. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, that could work. It's like using the actual topic title as the topic ID, and only adding as much of software-generated code as needed. One could even think of adding a link somewhere that lists all topics with the same title, preferably available already in the preview step. So when starting a new topic one could easily review related topics that might answer the same question before actually posting the question. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::A disambiguation page, if you will :) [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 21:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::So how about this:
Line 1,726:
::* Since changing a section/topic title is much more common than moving a page, it might be good to (on the back-end) avoid redirects, but instead have an additional table in the database which holds the topic title, n, and the internal topic ID. After a title change, both the old and the new title would point to the same ID, a bit like hardlinks instead of softlinks in a file system. There should be a way to list all titles a given topic is known under, and separate actions to delete individual titles and the topic itself. The table could be initially populated with our existing topics, with both the human readable titles and the cryptic URLs becoming pointers to these topics.
::An alternative would be skipping the ''(n)'' part for n=1, and finding another title suffix for the 'homonymous topics list', but I think always adding a number, starting from one, might be a cleaner concept.
::I think something like this will be much better than using IDs in URLs and wikilinks, as FLow does now. It's a bit like IP numbers versus human-readable URLs: one can use the URL directly, not just as a link text with the link target being an IP number. We should have a DNS for Flow, too. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Great post. One little thing to add - for very common titles, allow individual wikis to decide a different way to disambiguate instead of numbers. For example "Requested move (article name)" or "Welcome (to username)" or "Don't delete (by username)" [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::This alternative idea had been partially discussed by the team, possibly even as a lookup-table on top of the existing UUID structure. I've linked these additional notes at https://trello.com/c/7d2CciSA/ - Thanks :) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Quiddity, the Trello you linked to seems to miss the point entirely. We not saying the links should be "Topic:768f09a77696#My discussion" - it should be "Topic:My discussion". The technical id shouldn't appear in the link at all. I'm sure all the other pages on Wikipedia have some hidden technical identifier, but we never seem them, and we shouldn't for topics either. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I think what Quiddity means by {{tq|the alternative idea of "Topic:Human readable name (n)"}} is to skip the UUID in the URL/wikilink (please confirm).
::Yes, normal pages have IDs, see [[mediawikiwiki:Page table|mw:Page table]]. What we want is a similar table, just with the option to have several titles point at the same ID, which is possible since we won't re-use the old title after a rename for another page. The table should probably also store the actual topic title and the (counter) in separate fields, to make it easier to generate the disambiguation page and to find the next free counter. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Confirmed. :) (Sorry I wasn't clearer. I just added a comment at that card, I didn't alter the existing main description.) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Hhh, I think redirects are a better idea than an ID code table - we are already familiar with redirects, you could have the "redirected from" text appear on the Topic's current name, and all of our current redirect practices could be applied to Topic redirects just like any other. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 19:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,737:
::I agree something like "redirected from" would be nice, and also our current practices. <small>(We should maybe check, though, if any of those are workarounds for software deficiencies that could be solved in a better way, now that we're at it.)</small>
::And I think those features can be implemented no matter how the backend works.
::It would be nice, at some point, to get a bit more feedback from WMF than "Quiddity finds this interesting". Something like "we are working on it" (ideal :-) or we "will look into it" (when?) or "Wontfix" (why not?). — [[User:Hhhippo|<
:A misleading title on e.g. a talk page is a TPG issue which we already have ways to deal with (editors can fix it themselves, transgressors advised, warned and eventually sanctioned if it rises to the level of or is part of general disruptive editing). Links to discussions on pages I don't want to view should be obvious; redirects should be obvious and not misleading. I don't need protecting especially but "WP is not censored" only makes sense if we offer some sort of reassurance to readers that they can avoid the unpleasant stuff if they want. <small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 20:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::Agreed. Malevolent mislabelling van be dealt with our established procedures. That should indeed not be a problem. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
===Hide, collapse, undo, ...===
Line 1,746:
:You know you can click the topic title to collapse a topic, right? Well, it's kind of an Easter egg, no indication that the title is a link and what it does, but I guess you've found it.
:So you mean setting the ''default'' state to collapsed? I agree, that would be useful.
:I don't get your last sentence: replacement for what? Hatting? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Yes, a replacement for hatting, which is persistent and for all users, not on an individual basis, but is less obtrusive than "hidden" or "locked". [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I agree, wee need that. I'm not sure what "hiding" or "locking" are actually doing / intended to do. Is there a discussion somewhere about what functions of that kind we need and what we should call them? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Hide: Is intended to be (once current changes are finished) equivalent to "undo", in that it will remove the content completely from the live views. The current in-development changes/specifications are at [[mediawikiwiki:Flow/Hide spec|mw:Flow/Hide spec]]. (Comments on that spec, at [[mw:Topic:S283xbi3ad8p1gw3]], would be appreciated.)
::Lock: The current feature is most clearly explained at [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/ee/2014-September/001076.html this mailing list post]. I agree that we'll need to further tweak this, and add at least one more option. I left notes on the styles and differences between the various "collapse templates" at https://trello.com/c/x8lHHkA6/ -- Perhaps what might work, is a single "summarise" function, with a few optional fields/checkboxes (to be equivalent to the 7+ near-identical templates with various parameters, currently at Enwiki).
Line 1,770:
::But for the few times that this is needed, it would be serious overkill to add it to the header. use the "three dots", rightclick on Permalink, open in new tab, and copy the URL from there. The header is already rather crowded, adding less useful things will not make Flow better. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::I could live with that, as long as I didn't have to copy it out of the URL, which is a big pain, [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::You could also right-click on permalink, and then chose 'copy link ___location' in the context menu (at least in FF, probably similar in other browsers). I agree with Fram that a one-click feature would probably be overkill and unnecessary interface clutter. Maybe some custom js for people who'd like such a button? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::There are notes on a ''potential'' menu for accessing a permalink, at https://trello.com/c/zdt35anb/107-permalink-flyout It could be something like the "More->Link to" menu in [[mediawikiwiki:User talk:Quiddity (WMF)/sandbox2|LQT]].
::Fwiw, my current method for linking to a section on any page (article or talkpage or other) is to either:
Line 1,783:
qqqqq [[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:EBernhardson (WMF)|talk]]) 17:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
:test 2 [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 22:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::test, too — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Do you really want to leave me? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::From an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:S2n4acq720znw1xf&fromnotif=1#flow-post-s2pdvzldeby41j71 unread notification link] — [[User:Hhhippo|<
Now is the time [[User:Deltahedron|Deltahedron]] ([[User talk:Deltahedron|talk]]) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,805:
::It won't be rarely used - merge discussions need to appear on both talk pages, deletion discussions on both the xfd page and the page being deleted, and a policy discussion could take place at multiple forums, instead of posting the "discuss it here" notice. There are tons of cases where topics should be on multiple pages, they don't now because it's difficult and doesn't work quite right when you do it. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 14:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::E.g. AfD's can be transcluded to the article talk page now already. We just don't do it because it isn't worth it. You have a link on the article, and directing people to the AfD or to the talk page is just as much effort for everyone involved. So at least for XfD's, there is no good reason to have those in multiple locations. Never mind that Flow is specifically designed to ''disallow'' transclusion. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I don't see why you would have to leave the host page when replying to a transcluded Flow topic. I'm right now replying to a topic on the board page, not the topic page, and AFAIK I'll still be on that page when I'm done. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Fram, I don't think it's designed to disallow transclusion, I think it's just not implemented yet. I created a test page in userspace that attempted just that and got the message "embedding discussions is not supported yet" or something like that. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::It's not something they have to implement, it's something they have to actively dis-implement. They can allow it again, probably, but it is clear that at least some people at the WMF don't want this. No idea why though. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 19:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Hhhippo, that's because a topic is now limited to one talk page. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 19:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Are you sure? Why shouldn't it be possible to submit a change to a topic without leaving (and then returning to) the board/page? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::I'm not sure about anything about Flow (no one is, I think). I am quite sure though that these discussions get very hard to follow in this format (who is responding to what exactly?) [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Agreed. Now that we use Flow for actual discussions it becomes pretty obvious that three levels of indentation are not enough, and that nobody feels that force to start a new Topic when a new topic comes up. The new topics are even suffocating the original topics, which is not what we need. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
::Subsections. They wouldn't solve everything, but they would solve a lot. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::Hhh, the ability to split a comment into a new topic will help a lot. This thread went way off-topic a long time ago and it would sure have helped to split it off. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 04:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,960:
I think to cover all use cases, these three concepts should be independent of each other: closing should indicate the end of a discussion, without enforcing that (like hatting on wikitext talk pages). Locking should put technical obstacles in the way of submitting further comments, like the need for unlocking before posting, with the option to require certain user rights for unlocking. Summarizing should just create a topic header that goes beyond the topic title (and could then probably benefit from a better name).
Apart from that, I don't get why you guys portray the properties "round" and "flat" as mutually exclusive: [[Cliché|common knowledge]] tells me that you as [[Nerd|people interested in software development]] should be [[addiction|very familiar]] with items that are [[pizza|both flat and round]] ;-) — [[User:Hhhippo|<
The way I see it, "lock" should be an admin-only right, with only admins able to lock and only admins able to unlock. This would be the practice for articles for deletion and other time-limited discussions - and might occasionally be needed temporarily to prevent misconduct, so there would need to be a time-limited option like for page protection (locked for the next 3 days and such)
Line 2,125:
Yep. That needs to be fixed. The way Flow reacts to resizing the browser window or the font doesn't help either. There should be at least an ''option'' to use all the available horizontal space in such cases.
I don't get the point of the vertical scroll bar at all. My browser has one already, and I use it a lot on Flow boards... — [[User:Hhhippo|<
Interesting, my experience is different than everyone else's. I don't see a horizontal scroll bar at all, just a vertical one. What does need to be eliminated, in my opinion, is to not have scroll bars within scroll bars, which causes problems for those using mouses or trackpads to scroll. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Line 2,149:
The topic page will be on the topics-only view and you will not be able to expand it. MacOS 10.7 with latest version of Chrome. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 07:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:Looks like a fix is on the way: {{phab|73593}}. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
==Test post==
Line 2,684:
Hmm. Didn't we have a preview button?
Is it a good idea to use the same label for a button that starts a reply (looks like a greyed out link, but works like a button), and for the one that submits the reply? To which of those does the license notice refer? — [[User:Hhhippo|<
Hippo, I don't see any confusion about the hidden comment notice. It's pretty obvious to me that the hidden comment was right where the note is now. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 01:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me then. Of course I know what it means but I don't find it obvious at all for someone who doesn't. Anyway, this detail should have low priority. I still hope we'll get a way to collapse sub-threads while reading without hiding them for others, and also better visual clues that make the new indentation system more intuitive and less ambiguous. Any of those changes will likely involve a redesign of the hidden comment notice anyway, so we can discuss it then. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
==Browse topics doesn't work for old topics==
Line 3,256:
With the </> 'button' you can change the edit field to use wiki markup, if that's what your missing.
Deleting a topic or post is called 'hide' in the '...' menus. Nothing is ever actually deleted from the database, just like with normal wiki pages, so 'hide' is maybe not too bad a name. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
To clarify, an administrator can actually delete a post. Think of hide like "revert" and delete like "revision delete" on wikitalk pages. If you hide your post, any user could unhide it, but if an admin deletes it, only an admin could restore it. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And the admin can restore it because it's not actually deleted from the database, only hidden from normal users. But you're right, that action is most similar to what we usually call 'delete'. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
==New topic test==
| |||