![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi! Can someone enable Flow here?
-- Ochilov (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a new messsage in wt:Breakfast that included a link to Portal:Liquor, but checking the portal now I don't see it in Pages that link to "Portal:Liquor". Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I believe I voiced the same concern already, but it has not been addressed{
Old messages show up as posted (for example) a year ago with nothing more specific to try and pin it down to a real date&time. WHY??? Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
[1] gives me 50 edits from mw:Talk:Flow. No older edits can be reached in this way (with some effort one can see at most 500 edits, the remainder is not accessible through history).
At the top are 6 "deleted a comment" edits, spanning 8 minutes. On a normal talk page (or any other page), one goes to the history and can undo or rollback multiple edits, spanning multiple sections, at once, or one can easily revert to an older version of a page by editing that version. No such things is (as far as I know) possible with Flow. E.g. "Undo" is available on edits that edit a comment, not edits that add a comment (the majority). These can be hidden, but only one by one.
In general, maintenance of Flow pages is very poorly conceived. Fram ( talk) 13:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted an RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast. A few months into the Flow trial all project work declined to zero, with no project activity in over a year. Should the trial be ended? Alsee ( talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I opened the beta page, but I can't find it. And I am looking forward this function can enable by users and I hope this function will unable in English Wikipedia in January 2016. Also, Chinese Wikipedia can enable Flow function by users already. Please publish the date of enable, thank you.-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of these templates. Are they actually in production? They say to never modify - in which case they may need protection - but really shouldn't system type messages be in the mediawiki space? — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What is User:Flow talk page manager [2] actually doing? It seems to edit every topic that gets created, as if every individual topic needs to be "Flow-enabled". This seems like a lot of overkill. Strangely, while one can see in the contributions of Flow talk page manager that these edits are made, they can not be seen in the history of the topic. I didn't know that some edits could be shown in one edit history (by user) but not in another (on the page the edit was made). I also don't think this is a good idea, it certainly seems like a dangerous precedent.
The edit summary for the edits, "This page has been converted into a Flow discussion board" is also quite wrong, as no page is being converted, only a new topic is being started.
The topic edits are not deleted when the actual page gets deleted, although edits made to pages are deleted apparently. It makes it hard to follow what the "manager" actually has done (of course, the nonsensical topic titles also don't help one bit).
The same "user" also created templates like Template:LQT post imported with supressed user (with typo in the name) and Template:LQT Moved thread stub converted to Flow. I don't think enwiki has even a single LQT page, so why the manager was used to create useless templates is not clear.
Is it correct that blocking this "manager" would basically disable Flow on a complete wiki (no more new topics or Flow pages, only posts in existing topics remain possible)? That's ... interesting and potentially useful, if the WMF would reverse its position and try to impose Flow against the wishes of a community ;-). Perhaps not using the Flow manager for other stuff like importing unwanted templates will reduce the likelihood of it getting blocked here. Keep automated edits to Flow pages and topics and other stuff separated please, for your own good. Fram ( talk) 08:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Alsee (
talk) 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
At the bottom of Help talk:Citation Style 1#Automatic ISO conversion (timestamp 10:41, 31 December 2015) is a post that was originally posted at mw:Talk:Citoid. However, that uses Flow and the post comprehensively broke. And https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=Topic:Suuu319c6knnexd9&topic_showPostId=sv4lwbfo5mxk8176#flow-post-sv4lwbfo5mxk8176 is a link to who-knows-what. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of complaints about the abilities to deal with lots of problematic edits by one editor in one go, on Flow. A simple example is User:ZOKIDIN3, obvious sock of User:ZOKIDIN, who created the new topic "Sockpuppet IP + Account ZOKIDIN" on Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. This is indicated in his contributions with a nice fat "N" indicating a new page, but when I use "mass delete" on his contributions (as as a test, mass delete isn't intended to delete one page of course), I get "No new pages by ZOKIDIN3 in recent changes.". Since there also is no rollback, no mass undo, whatever, the only way to remove multiple posts by one user is one by one. This is highly inefficient, and a serious step back from what we have on other talk pages. Please make sure, if you ever want to roll out Flow, that good tools for maintenance are available. Fram ( talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Flow talk page manager as a test. Turns out that this doesn't make any difference, it can still create new topics. Is it acceptable that there are unblockable "editors" on Wikipedia (without any discussion, as far as I know), which if they would malfunction can not be stopped? Or can every blocked editor still create topics? I presume the user right "Flow bot", which I hadn't noticed before, is somehow involved with this, but I doubt this is a good idea (standard bots can be stopped by every admin, why does Flow need a separate account with other "powers"?). And if it can't be blocked, then please don't let me block it but just give an error, with an indication of who can stop it if necessary (stewards? bureaucrats?).
Anyway, I'll leave this "user" blocked for now, if anyone notices a difference in behaviour please drop a note here. Fram ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Another sock of the same user, Zokidin4, has now edited the Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page header three times in a row. I can't undo these all at once, but have to undo them one by one. There is no separate history for the header (or I haven't found the link, same difference), so I can't go back to the previous version and restore that one, as I have no idea how old the last version was. I can't simply undo the first of the sock's header edits, because then I get the error about conflicting intermediate edits (good), so it seems as if the only option is undo, undo, undo. Which is feasible if the number of edits is limited, and if the edits are very recent: but to restore an old version or to remove older vandalism seems hardly possible. I can find a Permalink to an older version, like [3] this, but I can't use this in any way (no restore, edit, view source code, ...). The older version says "from 19 days so", soon it would probably say "from 1 month ago" so finding it again would be a needle in a haystack for somewhat active talk pages.
So my end reaction was "screw it", the WMF or one of their cronies can clean up this mess themselves if they can't give us decent tools to do so. Fram ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I want to ask about enable Flow function in beta again. In the last talk said Flow development has been suspended. I also would like to call to resume Flow development and enable Flow function in English Wikipedia as early as possible. Thank You.-- Shwangtianyuan STRONGLY CONDEMNS 2016 North Korean nuclear test 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
What a total shitload of nonsense Flow is.
On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, I opened the top list (the TOC). Took a few seconds to appear. I scroll to the bottom, "Welcome to Flow" (light grey), click on it. Nothing whatsoever happens. Perhaps because it is light grey, whatever that means? So I click the second-to-last, "Article collaboration", which is a nice solid black. Again, nothing whatsoever happens. A huge improvement over the TOC of standard talk pages, of course.
Up, up, up, still nothing happens if I click in the browse topics drop down on "Update on Flow trial". Only when I click on "Price of breakfast foods going up?" can I actually use the TOC. Yep, you get "infinite scrolling", "no need to archive" (no possibility to archive as well of course), but you are not supposed to go to anything older than the ten most recent topics. A page like WP:ANI has more active discussions than that, but that "problem" will be solved with Flow! No wonder they only wanted to test it on moribund project pages with sympathetic WMF people involved.
So, now that I can't use the TOC, I tried to go down by scrolling. Patience, patience, ... eventually you get there (but I wouldn't want to do this on a truly active talk page with a few hundred topics, which isn't that unusual). It's very annoying that when the "waiting signal" (some spinning wheel) appears, you may get catapulted back up again a number of topics, but that's par for the course probably.
Having arrived at "Welcome to Flow", I notice that it is tagged as "resolved". Very well, but that means that I can't read it at all. Oh wait, on the right side, I can "reopen the topic". Perhaps that's a way to read it? Yes it is, but now it is no longer resolved, and I have to re-resolve it afterwards, which means that instead of a topic from two years ago, it suddenly is an "active" topic from a few minutes ago with my name attached, and the history of the topic shows two edits by me. Not really an anonymous way of reading topics, or a good way to handle pages where topics are ordered by most recent activity.
So, now the topic is at the top of the page, instead of at the bottom, only because I wanted to read it, and everyone can see that I did read it. Perhaps I can change the header to indicate this? Edit header, in wikitext. Hey, there is (almost invisible at the bottom) a line that says "Wikitext uses markup and you can preview the result anytime." So that's where the preview went! Finally, something positive to say about Flow.
Oh, wait, that's not a preview, that's a switch to VE mode, and it doesn't show me what the header will look like (it won't have that big "link" box, or the italic, bold, underlined A in the bottom left corner, or... By the way, there doesn't seem to be a way to get rid of that box apart from the "slashed red circle" symbol which unlinks the link. I just want to type something after that link, is that too much too ask? Oh wait, I'm talking Flow plus VE here, obviously anything is too much to ask with that combination.
Please remove this utter piece of shit from enwiki and annoy the people at mediawiki with it instead. Come back in a few years time when you have wasted some more donations on badly tested developments (this thing is more than two years old, surely things as basic as this should have been found and solved by now), but in the meantime leave us well alone. Any continued deployment on enwiki is a disgrace and an indication of the total lack of respect you (WMF) have for us. Not that that is any news of course. Fram ( talk) 09:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, a subheader, good thing we are not in Flow here. Anyway, when I go to Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page, for some reason I can click on every topic in the TOC and it takes me to the correct post. For the sake of predictability, we get a number of other problems instead though.
Basically, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it works in quite unexpected ways (but rarely are they a nice surprise). It is not intuitive, predictable, or useful beyond the very basics. It is unmaintainable, not user-friendly, and riddled with bugs. The above problems all come from simple testing, mostly not even trying to edit, never mind doing more complicated stuff or actievly trying to break things. I don't dare do any destructive testing with this thing, as chances are I would break things outside of Flow as well again. Good going! Fram ( talk) 10:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In "my contributions", I can see for every edit whether it is the current one or not, through the nice bolded "(current)" at the end of the line. Every edit, that is, except for Flow edits.
I also sometimes don't get a "diff" for Flow edits, and sometimes I do. E.g. this one comes from my contributions. Yes, that's supposed to be a diff, even though it is not one as we know it. But for e.g. this post I made in the middle of a topic, there is no "diff" available. In that link, you get the line "This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page." But while what I posted was a "post", the link to the "post history page" leads me to the "topic history page", which is of course a different thing.
Notice also that with such a permalink to a post, you don't get any information. Who posted it, and when? In which topic? A complete mystery! I guess some bugzilla or phabricator task could be tagged as "finished" when the permalink was implemented, and no one cared whether it was actually useful or not. Fram ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
General question, do we want to open Phabricator requests to fix Flow bugs? At one point I was reporting bugs, I was literally running into new issues faster than I could write them down. After a while I decided reporting bugs was probably counterproductive. I realized I didn't actually want them fixed. In my opinion fixing the bugs wouldn't turn Flow into a viable product. It crossed my mind that reporting a bug only served to divert valuable developer time away from other important work.
What do other people think? Alsee ( talk) 23:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
From time to time, I test Flow a bit and write down some remarks, like above. I don't file any bugs, if the devs or the product manager (of such a person still exists) want to do so they can convert my reports to bugs. I refuse to post anything to phabricator or to mediawiki, the first for security reasons and the latter for the toxic admin and WMF groupthink culture in that place. But not posting the occasional complaint list here may wrongly give the impression that everything is shiny and happy in Flow-lalaland. No one even seems to know anymore if Flow is abandoned or not, and on what they are actually working ("workflow", I think the latest bubble was). Fram ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback
I was pretty sure that already in 2014, the WMF promised to not enable any further Flow pages on enwiki without prior community approval. This isn't the first one we discover where this promise was broken. Please remove it ASAP. And please stop using enwik as your personal playground and testing ground. Fram ( talk) 15:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Fram (
talk) 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Most Flow pages have been deleted. Project Breakfast has consensus to end the Flow trial and convert back to a talk page. The Gather page is currently at deletion discussion with unanimous delete votes. Assuming I haven't missed anything, that only leaves the Flow Test board and Wikiproject Hampshire. Wikiproject Hampshire has a grand total of one project-related post in the last five months, plus a few incidental updates posted about Wikiproject X.
Do we want to start a Village Pump RFC about Flow? And if so, does anyone want to collaborate on drafting it? I was thinking of making a subpage here for drafting discussions. I was considering a series of questions: Do we want to enable the WMF's new system that lets people opt-in to Flow for their user talk? Should any new Flow deployments be required to go through Village Pump discussion? Should we end the Hampshire Flow trial (convert back to talk)? Should we remove Flow from both Hampshire&Test_page, and remove the Flow Extension completely? Alsee ( talk) 02:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast is shutting down their Flow experiment (against the wishes of some members, for ideological reasons) after an RfC. Problem is that no one at WMF knows how a Flow page should be shut down.
The simple solution would be to move it to an archive (in Flow mode) and fully protect it. Disadvantage is that this works for one or two pages, but wouldn't work if Flow should be totally disabled and the Topic namespace removed. Other disadvantage is that no one seems to know whether a Flow page can be moved anyway. It certainly can't be done here, you get "The "Create Flow boards in any location" permission is required to move a Flow board." even if you want to move it to another Flow-enabled place (I know, I tested). Strangely, when you try to move a Flow board, you also don't get the "Leave a redirect behind" box, it is grayed out. While leaving a redirect wouldn't be wanted in this case, in general it is something that should be standard when moving many talk pages.
The apparently harder solution is to convert the page back to a standard wikiproject talk page, with history and all preferably. This is easy, according to all WMF statements, until it is actually needed, and then it is very hard, like here, and needs to be developed. In Wikipedia talk:Flow/Archive 11#Can Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast be easily switched back? (from September 2014), the question was asked, and Erik Moeller and Quiddity indicated that it was "certainly doable" and that "The script to convert content back was updated at the end of June, and was locally tested by the dev". An actual test the next week was catastrophic (section "Deletion of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test" a bit lower), but the Flow manager at the time (and other WMF people) didn't respond to any questions about it, even when pinged.
As can be seen from e.g. this phabricator page, apparently the claims from the WMF from September 2014 were, as could be expected, false (let's call them "severely exaggerated"), which was noted a few days later by the non-WMF people but only realised at the WMF now apparently.
So, at the moment, two years after the first Flow deployments and more than a year after we were assured that moving back to wikitext wasn't a problem, it can't be done in a somewhat correct way at all. What a surprise...
On 23 November 2013, Okeyes(WMF) changed the Wikipedia:Flow/FAQ [4] to include the following (in the "Can I opt-out?" section):
If you convert to using Flow during the trial period (in a WikiProject discussion space), we'll be able to convert the content back into a normal talkpage if needed.
This was before the trials here in Wikiproject discussion space started. The above text can still be found on the FAQ (which I tagged as "historical" this week because it is totally outdated in many aspects). So before the WMF asked us to start a temporary trial on some Wikiprojects, they explicitly and clearly promised that conversion was possible. By September 2014, they still said it was doable and they had a tested script which only needed a little tweak to update it. But now that we actually want it, it's panic in the streets of San Francisco apparently.
And people wonder why we don't trust the WMF... Fram ( talk) 10:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the current situation is that they can convert the final "text" of the page to a wikitext page, but are unable to recreate the history (not surprising, considering how poor the history is on Flow pages). Their "solution" is to create a text archive without history, and keep the Flow page (and all the topics) as well for the history. So at the moment it is not possible to remove Flow from your wiki if you don't want it anymore after the trial. Well thought out, obviously, this implementation. Fram ( talk) 08:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The page has now been converted back. Sorry again, for the long delay. Hopefully we can discuss any issues here, and let that WikiProject get back to focusing on content collaborations. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Any interested parties are invited to comment at MFD: WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Breakfast/Flow_archive
The WMF converted the Flow discussion page for WikiProject_Breakfast back into a Talk page after RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast? reached an affirmative consensus. There now exist a Talk page and a Flow page with identical content. The WMF explicitly left it to us to decide whether to keep or delete the duplicate Flow version. Alsee ( talk) 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on the failed proposal box on the WP:Flow page and my skimming of the top of this current talk page, I deleted the following from Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation § Recent rollouts and planned new features:
* Wikipedia:Flow is a planned release, and you can test it out at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page.
I trust there are no objections? BTW, the notice box in WP:Flow still promotes it as testable, but it is right below the failed proposal box, so it's debatable IMO whether it needs changing at all. Thanks for all your hard work being bold'n'stuff. — Geekdiva ( talk) 04:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been asking around to get info about editors needs and Wikipedia's toolset and intentions to end with the mess that Talk pages and discussions in general are. In my opinion, the current state is unacceptable. I've been reading this talk page and still is not clear to me what's the real situation of this project. I see that some significant design choices have been made (I don't know by whom) and that now it's just a bent tree. I'm a dev that wants (or wanted, I don't know after reading too many nonsensical decisions) to create an standalone open source webapp for editors to have a tool that's useful to discuss, argue, edit and basically not scare off new users or make your eyes bleed when you're trying to make sense of some consensus or arguments. Are there any devs interested in that? Because this -> http://i.imgur.com/BdNxXvS.png is unacceptable. Nmaxcom ( talk) 04:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made it, I've drafted a RfC proposal to activate the Teahouse gadget at talk pages, complementary to User:BethNaught/Draft_Flow_RfC proposal to deactivate Flow; I'll post it if Beth's RfC is published. Suggestions are welcome. Diego ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I know that this is extremely vanilla, but should we activate it on the Signpost or WikiProject newsletters for commenting? It would be similar to existing systems of social participation/engagement. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 16:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=Talk%3AUniversal_Language_Selector%2FDesign%2FInterlanguage_links%2FArchive_1&type=revision&diff=2146526&oldid=2140172 These archiving actions triggered the mediaiwiki notification as if there're something new happened on the page and made it feel like users have edited an archived page if you look at contribution history of users who have leave their comments in the page before. Can that be improved? C933103 ( talk) 11:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm just letting interested parties know that the WMF is planning to run a satisfaction survey on Flow soon. I'll probably post the link here when it's released, but here is a preview. Alsee ( talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you installed a wine cellar in your house! Would you mind answering our survey? Do you prefer beer or wine?
Hi! I noticed you've used steam automobiles in the past, and are now trying out electric automobiles. Would you mind answering our survey on how you'd like electric automobiles to evolve in the coming years?
Hi! Bicycles have too many wheels, so we invented the unicycle. Aren't we brilliant?
The survey has been released. @ Doc James, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Alsee:. The full announcement is:
HTH, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 17:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM/ WP:NOTHERE disruption, other than the one that already happens on regular talk pages anyway? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
Od}}
to glue things together, although not optimally (building something over wikitext would be helpful, again). Not to mention that unless Flow is optimized correctly, loading busy talk pages would lag readers with older computers. Not to mention a nightmare to read. —
Esquivalience (
talk) 03:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Put some type of forum thing on the admin and 'crat noticeboards and their (non-archive) subpages, Arbitration/Requests/Case subpages, and "X for (deletion OR discussion)" pages, but NOT on talk pages. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 00:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. There is agreement from the main participants and original volunteer to end the Flow testing at WikiProject Hampshire for now, due to the pause of current development work. The only other Flow page on Enwiki currently is the sandbox. Following discussion at User talk:BethNaught/Draft Flow RfC and elsewhere, we all want to avoid a long and frustrating discussion about continuing the overall testing on this wiki at the moment, despite some editors willingness to continue, and so we're removing Flow from Enwiki for now, after converting the 2 existing pages back to wikitext, today.
In the future, if Flow improves to such an extent that Enwiki collectively decides we want to test it again in 1 or more locations, then it will be simple enough to follow that consensus and re-enable the extension here. We're (collectively) trying to resolve this amicably, and after much discussion, in various locations, this is the agreed upon process. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 23:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Wikitext talk page converted to Flow and other similar templates have been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Ppp
ery 01:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
m:Collaboration/Flow_satisfaction_survey/Report
This is the most extreme case of POV-pushing that I have ever seen come out of the WMF. The WMF selectively canvassed thousands of Talk page invitations to people who had actively converted their User_Talk pages to Flow, WP:Votestacking the survey as hard as possible in favor of Flow. When the report was being written, I requested that this concern be explicitly noted on the Flow-vs-Wikitext figures. I was told to wait and see how the report turned out. I was unsurprised that this concern was not addressed. I was however shocked-beyond-belief to discover that the authors had done the exact opposite. The report alleged that EnWiki community members posted messages attempting to bias the survey against Flow, alleging that the survey was ballot-stuffed against Flow, and asserting that survey responses critical of Flow were less than fully legitimate. As far as I'm aware, the only advertisement of the Survey on EnWiki were neutrally worded announcements on this page, on Central Notice, and (I think) on Village Pump. I have requested that citation be provided for the asserted inappropriate messages. [6]
The most noteworthy data point is that 52% of participants preferred wikitext talk pages, 38% preffered Flow, and 10% were neutral. Those results are particularly striking, given the massive canvassing of Flow's most enthusiastic fan base. Even more significantly, "Strongly Prefer Wikitext" still outnumbered "Strongly Prefer Flow" and "Somewhat Prefer Flow" combined.
Despite the uniformly dismal survey results on Flow, the entire report pushes a pro-Flow interpretation and phrasing as hard as possible. The report uses these canvassed results and biased interpretation to determine that Flow development should continue, and that the WMF should seek to expand deployment. Alsee ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: The most troublesome paragraph, and allegations, have been removed. Alsee ( talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Archive for converted wikitext talk page has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Community,
You might use Flow discussion boards on some wikis of the foundation.
Since you discussed about the Flow:Extension, I imagine you are using the Flow extension on your wiki.
To us, Flow discussion boards are very powerful. However, they can only be used on the discussion page of a specific page. This doesn't encourage collaboration because users usually visit the pages they watch and some discussions remains unanswered for days...
We believe a special page that gather all the discussions of the wiki will improve collaboration between users.
In the meantime, discussions boards are displayed in a separate tab. This can be confusing to newcomers. If the discussion boards were transcluded under the wiki page itself, it'd look like what users are used to see on other sites (like comments on a blog).
As Mediawiki developers, our team have apply for this Grant to develop such features.
If you think this project should be selected for a Project Grant, please add your name and rationale for endorsing at the bottom of this page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/ClemFlip/Wikifab/Various_types_of_transclusions_of_Flow_discussion_boards
Of course, other constructive feedback is welcome.
Thanks a lot for your help.
ClemFlip 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you discussed about the Flow:Extension, I imagine you are using the Flow extension on your wiki.- Flow was uninstalled from the English Wikipedia in November last year after an overwhelmingly negative response from the local editing community. It's unlikely to ever be reinstalled. — Scott • talk 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
a special page that gather all the discussions of the wikifor en-wikipedia would be roughly the size of the whole of Twitter combined and would instantly crash the browser of anyone who tried to load it. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi! Can someone enable Flow here?
-- Ochilov (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a new messsage in wt:Breakfast that included a link to Portal:Liquor, but checking the portal now I don't see it in Pages that link to "Portal:Liquor". Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I believe I voiced the same concern already, but it has not been addressed{
Old messages show up as posted (for example) a year ago with nothing more specific to try and pin it down to a real date&time. WHY??? Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
[1] gives me 50 edits from mw:Talk:Flow. No older edits can be reached in this way (with some effort one can see at most 500 edits, the remainder is not accessible through history).
At the top are 6 "deleted a comment" edits, spanning 8 minutes. On a normal talk page (or any other page), one goes to the history and can undo or rollback multiple edits, spanning multiple sections, at once, or one can easily revert to an older version of a page by editing that version. No such things is (as far as I know) possible with Flow. E.g. "Undo" is available on edits that edit a comment, not edits that add a comment (the majority). These can be hidden, but only one by one.
In general, maintenance of Flow pages is very poorly conceived. Fram ( talk) 13:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted an RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast. A few months into the Flow trial all project work declined to zero, with no project activity in over a year. Should the trial be ended? Alsee ( talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I opened the beta page, but I can't find it. And I am looking forward this function can enable by users and I hope this function will unable in English Wikipedia in January 2016. Also, Chinese Wikipedia can enable Flow function by users already. Please publish the date of enable, thank you.-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of these templates. Are they actually in production? They say to never modify - in which case they may need protection - but really shouldn't system type messages be in the mediawiki space? — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What is User:Flow talk page manager [2] actually doing? It seems to edit every topic that gets created, as if every individual topic needs to be "Flow-enabled". This seems like a lot of overkill. Strangely, while one can see in the contributions of Flow talk page manager that these edits are made, they can not be seen in the history of the topic. I didn't know that some edits could be shown in one edit history (by user) but not in another (on the page the edit was made). I also don't think this is a good idea, it certainly seems like a dangerous precedent.
The edit summary for the edits, "This page has been converted into a Flow discussion board" is also quite wrong, as no page is being converted, only a new topic is being started.
The topic edits are not deleted when the actual page gets deleted, although edits made to pages are deleted apparently. It makes it hard to follow what the "manager" actually has done (of course, the nonsensical topic titles also don't help one bit).
The same "user" also created templates like Template:LQT post imported with supressed user (with typo in the name) and Template:LQT Moved thread stub converted to Flow. I don't think enwiki has even a single LQT page, so why the manager was used to create useless templates is not clear.
Is it correct that blocking this "manager" would basically disable Flow on a complete wiki (no more new topics or Flow pages, only posts in existing topics remain possible)? That's ... interesting and potentially useful, if the WMF would reverse its position and try to impose Flow against the wishes of a community ;-). Perhaps not using the Flow manager for other stuff like importing unwanted templates will reduce the likelihood of it getting blocked here. Keep automated edits to Flow pages and topics and other stuff separated please, for your own good. Fram ( talk) 08:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Co-op/Mentorship match during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Alsee (
talk) 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
At the bottom of Help talk:Citation Style 1#Automatic ISO conversion (timestamp 10:41, 31 December 2015) is a post that was originally posted at mw:Talk:Citoid. However, that uses Flow and the post comprehensively broke. And https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=Topic:Suuu319c6knnexd9&topic_showPostId=sv4lwbfo5mxk8176#flow-post-sv4lwbfo5mxk8176 is a link to who-knows-what. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of complaints about the abilities to deal with lots of problematic edits by one editor in one go, on Flow. A simple example is User:ZOKIDIN3, obvious sock of User:ZOKIDIN, who created the new topic "Sockpuppet IP + Account ZOKIDIN" on Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. This is indicated in his contributions with a nice fat "N" indicating a new page, but when I use "mass delete" on his contributions (as as a test, mass delete isn't intended to delete one page of course), I get "No new pages by ZOKIDIN3 in recent changes.". Since there also is no rollback, no mass undo, whatever, the only way to remove multiple posts by one user is one by one. This is highly inefficient, and a serious step back from what we have on other talk pages. Please make sure, if you ever want to roll out Flow, that good tools for maintenance are available. Fram ( talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Flow talk page manager as a test. Turns out that this doesn't make any difference, it can still create new topics. Is it acceptable that there are unblockable "editors" on Wikipedia (without any discussion, as far as I know), which if they would malfunction can not be stopped? Or can every blocked editor still create topics? I presume the user right "Flow bot", which I hadn't noticed before, is somehow involved with this, but I doubt this is a good idea (standard bots can be stopped by every admin, why does Flow need a separate account with other "powers"?). And if it can't be blocked, then please don't let me block it but just give an error, with an indication of who can stop it if necessary (stewards? bureaucrats?).
Anyway, I'll leave this "user" blocked for now, if anyone notices a difference in behaviour please drop a note here. Fram ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Another sock of the same user, Zokidin4, has now edited the Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page header three times in a row. I can't undo these all at once, but have to undo them one by one. There is no separate history for the header (or I haven't found the link, same difference), so I can't go back to the previous version and restore that one, as I have no idea how old the last version was. I can't simply undo the first of the sock's header edits, because then I get the error about conflicting intermediate edits (good), so it seems as if the only option is undo, undo, undo. Which is feasible if the number of edits is limited, and if the edits are very recent: but to restore an old version or to remove older vandalism seems hardly possible. I can find a Permalink to an older version, like [3] this, but I can't use this in any way (no restore, edit, view source code, ...). The older version says "from 19 days so", soon it would probably say "from 1 month ago" so finding it again would be a needle in a haystack for somewhat active talk pages.
So my end reaction was "screw it", the WMF or one of their cronies can clean up this mess themselves if they can't give us decent tools to do so. Fram ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I want to ask about enable Flow function in beta again. In the last talk said Flow development has been suspended. I also would like to call to resume Flow development and enable Flow function in English Wikipedia as early as possible. Thank You.-- Shwangtianyuan STRONGLY CONDEMNS 2016 North Korean nuclear test 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
What a total shitload of nonsense Flow is.
On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, I opened the top list (the TOC). Took a few seconds to appear. I scroll to the bottom, "Welcome to Flow" (light grey), click on it. Nothing whatsoever happens. Perhaps because it is light grey, whatever that means? So I click the second-to-last, "Article collaboration", which is a nice solid black. Again, nothing whatsoever happens. A huge improvement over the TOC of standard talk pages, of course.
Up, up, up, still nothing happens if I click in the browse topics drop down on "Update on Flow trial". Only when I click on "Price of breakfast foods going up?" can I actually use the TOC. Yep, you get "infinite scrolling", "no need to archive" (no possibility to archive as well of course), but you are not supposed to go to anything older than the ten most recent topics. A page like WP:ANI has more active discussions than that, but that "problem" will be solved with Flow! No wonder they only wanted to test it on moribund project pages with sympathetic WMF people involved.
So, now that I can't use the TOC, I tried to go down by scrolling. Patience, patience, ... eventually you get there (but I wouldn't want to do this on a truly active talk page with a few hundred topics, which isn't that unusual). It's very annoying that when the "waiting signal" (some spinning wheel) appears, you may get catapulted back up again a number of topics, but that's par for the course probably.
Having arrived at "Welcome to Flow", I notice that it is tagged as "resolved". Very well, but that means that I can't read it at all. Oh wait, on the right side, I can "reopen the topic". Perhaps that's a way to read it? Yes it is, but now it is no longer resolved, and I have to re-resolve it afterwards, which means that instead of a topic from two years ago, it suddenly is an "active" topic from a few minutes ago with my name attached, and the history of the topic shows two edits by me. Not really an anonymous way of reading topics, or a good way to handle pages where topics are ordered by most recent activity.
So, now the topic is at the top of the page, instead of at the bottom, only because I wanted to read it, and everyone can see that I did read it. Perhaps I can change the header to indicate this? Edit header, in wikitext. Hey, there is (almost invisible at the bottom) a line that says "Wikitext uses markup and you can preview the result anytime." So that's where the preview went! Finally, something positive to say about Flow.
Oh, wait, that's not a preview, that's a switch to VE mode, and it doesn't show me what the header will look like (it won't have that big "link" box, or the italic, bold, underlined A in the bottom left corner, or... By the way, there doesn't seem to be a way to get rid of that box apart from the "slashed red circle" symbol which unlinks the link. I just want to type something after that link, is that too much too ask? Oh wait, I'm talking Flow plus VE here, obviously anything is too much to ask with that combination.
Please remove this utter piece of shit from enwiki and annoy the people at mediawiki with it instead. Come back in a few years time when you have wasted some more donations on badly tested developments (this thing is more than two years old, surely things as basic as this should have been found and solved by now), but in the meantime leave us well alone. Any continued deployment on enwiki is a disgrace and an indication of the total lack of respect you (WMF) have for us. Not that that is any news of course. Fram ( talk) 09:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, a subheader, good thing we are not in Flow here. Anyway, when I go to Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page, for some reason I can click on every topic in the TOC and it takes me to the correct post. For the sake of predictability, we get a number of other problems instead though.
Basically, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it works in quite unexpected ways (but rarely are they a nice surprise). It is not intuitive, predictable, or useful beyond the very basics. It is unmaintainable, not user-friendly, and riddled with bugs. The above problems all come from simple testing, mostly not even trying to edit, never mind doing more complicated stuff or actievly trying to break things. I don't dare do any destructive testing with this thing, as chances are I would break things outside of Flow as well again. Good going! Fram ( talk) 10:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In "my contributions", I can see for every edit whether it is the current one or not, through the nice bolded "(current)" at the end of the line. Every edit, that is, except for Flow edits.
I also sometimes don't get a "diff" for Flow edits, and sometimes I do. E.g. this one comes from my contributions. Yes, that's supposed to be a diff, even though it is not one as we know it. But for e.g. this post I made in the middle of a topic, there is no "diff" available. In that link, you get the line "This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page." But while what I posted was a "post", the link to the "post history page" leads me to the "topic history page", which is of course a different thing.
Notice also that with such a permalink to a post, you don't get any information. Who posted it, and when? In which topic? A complete mystery! I guess some bugzilla or phabricator task could be tagged as "finished" when the permalink was implemented, and no one cared whether it was actually useful or not. Fram ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
General question, do we want to open Phabricator requests to fix Flow bugs? At one point I was reporting bugs, I was literally running into new issues faster than I could write them down. After a while I decided reporting bugs was probably counterproductive. I realized I didn't actually want them fixed. In my opinion fixing the bugs wouldn't turn Flow into a viable product. It crossed my mind that reporting a bug only served to divert valuable developer time away from other important work.
What do other people think? Alsee ( talk) 23:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
From time to time, I test Flow a bit and write down some remarks, like above. I don't file any bugs, if the devs or the product manager (of such a person still exists) want to do so they can convert my reports to bugs. I refuse to post anything to phabricator or to mediawiki, the first for security reasons and the latter for the toxic admin and WMF groupthink culture in that place. But not posting the occasional complaint list here may wrongly give the impression that everything is shiny and happy in Flow-lalaland. No one even seems to know anymore if Flow is abandoned or not, and on what they are actually working ("workflow", I think the latest bubble was). Fram ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback
I was pretty sure that already in 2014, the WMF promised to not enable any further Flow pages on enwiki without prior community approval. This isn't the first one we discover where this promise was broken. Please remove it ASAP. And please stop using enwik as your personal playground and testing ground. Fram ( talk) 15:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Fram (
talk) 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Most Flow pages have been deleted. Project Breakfast has consensus to end the Flow trial and convert back to a talk page. The Gather page is currently at deletion discussion with unanimous delete votes. Assuming I haven't missed anything, that only leaves the Flow Test board and Wikiproject Hampshire. Wikiproject Hampshire has a grand total of one project-related post in the last five months, plus a few incidental updates posted about Wikiproject X.
Do we want to start a Village Pump RFC about Flow? And if so, does anyone want to collaborate on drafting it? I was thinking of making a subpage here for drafting discussions. I was considering a series of questions: Do we want to enable the WMF's new system that lets people opt-in to Flow for their user talk? Should any new Flow deployments be required to go through Village Pump discussion? Should we end the Hampshire Flow trial (convert back to talk)? Should we remove Flow from both Hampshire&Test_page, and remove the Flow Extension completely? Alsee ( talk) 02:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast is shutting down their Flow experiment (against the wishes of some members, for ideological reasons) after an RfC. Problem is that no one at WMF knows how a Flow page should be shut down.
The simple solution would be to move it to an archive (in Flow mode) and fully protect it. Disadvantage is that this works for one or two pages, but wouldn't work if Flow should be totally disabled and the Topic namespace removed. Other disadvantage is that no one seems to know whether a Flow page can be moved anyway. It certainly can't be done here, you get "The "Create Flow boards in any location" permission is required to move a Flow board." even if you want to move it to another Flow-enabled place (I know, I tested). Strangely, when you try to move a Flow board, you also don't get the "Leave a redirect behind" box, it is grayed out. While leaving a redirect wouldn't be wanted in this case, in general it is something that should be standard when moving many talk pages.
The apparently harder solution is to convert the page back to a standard wikiproject talk page, with history and all preferably. This is easy, according to all WMF statements, until it is actually needed, and then it is very hard, like here, and needs to be developed. In Wikipedia talk:Flow/Archive 11#Can Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast be easily switched back? (from September 2014), the question was asked, and Erik Moeller and Quiddity indicated that it was "certainly doable" and that "The script to convert content back was updated at the end of June, and was locally tested by the dev". An actual test the next week was catastrophic (section "Deletion of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test" a bit lower), but the Flow manager at the time (and other WMF people) didn't respond to any questions about it, even when pinged.
As can be seen from e.g. this phabricator page, apparently the claims from the WMF from September 2014 were, as could be expected, false (let's call them "severely exaggerated"), which was noted a few days later by the non-WMF people but only realised at the WMF now apparently.
So, at the moment, two years after the first Flow deployments and more than a year after we were assured that moving back to wikitext wasn't a problem, it can't be done in a somewhat correct way at all. What a surprise...
On 23 November 2013, Okeyes(WMF) changed the Wikipedia:Flow/FAQ [4] to include the following (in the "Can I opt-out?" section):
If you convert to using Flow during the trial period (in a WikiProject discussion space), we'll be able to convert the content back into a normal talkpage if needed.
This was before the trials here in Wikiproject discussion space started. The above text can still be found on the FAQ (which I tagged as "historical" this week because it is totally outdated in many aspects). So before the WMF asked us to start a temporary trial on some Wikiprojects, they explicitly and clearly promised that conversion was possible. By September 2014, they still said it was doable and they had a tested script which only needed a little tweak to update it. But now that we actually want it, it's panic in the streets of San Francisco apparently.
And people wonder why we don't trust the WMF... Fram ( talk) 10:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the current situation is that they can convert the final "text" of the page to a wikitext page, but are unable to recreate the history (not surprising, considering how poor the history is on Flow pages). Their "solution" is to create a text archive without history, and keep the Flow page (and all the topics) as well for the history. So at the moment it is not possible to remove Flow from your wiki if you don't want it anymore after the trial. Well thought out, obviously, this implementation. Fram ( talk) 08:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The page has now been converted back. Sorry again, for the long delay. Hopefully we can discuss any issues here, and let that WikiProject get back to focusing on content collaborations. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Any interested parties are invited to comment at MFD: WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Breakfast/Flow_archive
The WMF converted the Flow discussion page for WikiProject_Breakfast back into a Talk page after RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast? reached an affirmative consensus. There now exist a Talk page and a Flow page with identical content. The WMF explicitly left it to us to decide whether to keep or delete the duplicate Flow version. Alsee ( talk) 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on the failed proposal box on the WP:Flow page and my skimming of the top of this current talk page, I deleted the following from Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation § Recent rollouts and planned new features:
* Wikipedia:Flow is a planned release, and you can test it out at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page.
I trust there are no objections? BTW, the notice box in WP:Flow still promotes it as testable, but it is right below the failed proposal box, so it's debatable IMO whether it needs changing at all. Thanks for all your hard work being bold'n'stuff. — Geekdiva ( talk) 04:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been asking around to get info about editors needs and Wikipedia's toolset and intentions to end with the mess that Talk pages and discussions in general are. In my opinion, the current state is unacceptable. I've been reading this talk page and still is not clear to me what's the real situation of this project. I see that some significant design choices have been made (I don't know by whom) and that now it's just a bent tree. I'm a dev that wants (or wanted, I don't know after reading too many nonsensical decisions) to create an standalone open source webapp for editors to have a tool that's useful to discuss, argue, edit and basically not scare off new users or make your eyes bleed when you're trying to make sense of some consensus or arguments. Are there any devs interested in that? Because this -> http://i.imgur.com/BdNxXvS.png is unacceptable. Nmaxcom ( talk) 04:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made it, I've drafted a RfC proposal to activate the Teahouse gadget at talk pages, complementary to User:BethNaught/Draft_Flow_RfC proposal to deactivate Flow; I'll post it if Beth's RfC is published. Suggestions are welcome. Diego ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I know that this is extremely vanilla, but should we activate it on the Signpost or WikiProject newsletters for commenting? It would be similar to existing systems of social participation/engagement. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 16:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.mediawiki.org/?title=Talk%3AUniversal_Language_Selector%2FDesign%2FInterlanguage_links%2FArchive_1&type=revision&diff=2146526&oldid=2140172 These archiving actions triggered the mediaiwiki notification as if there're something new happened on the page and made it feel like users have edited an archived page if you look at contribution history of users who have leave their comments in the page before. Can that be improved? C933103 ( talk) 11:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm just letting interested parties know that the WMF is planning to run a satisfaction survey on Flow soon. I'll probably post the link here when it's released, but here is a preview. Alsee ( talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you installed a wine cellar in your house! Would you mind answering our survey? Do you prefer beer or wine?
Hi! I noticed you've used steam automobiles in the past, and are now trying out electric automobiles. Would you mind answering our survey on how you'd like electric automobiles to evolve in the coming years?
Hi! Bicycles have too many wheels, so we invented the unicycle. Aren't we brilliant?
The survey has been released. @ Doc James, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Alsee:. The full announcement is:
HTH, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 17:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM/ WP:NOTHERE disruption, other than the one that already happens on regular talk pages anyway? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
Od}}
to glue things together, although not optimally (building something over wikitext would be helpful, again). Not to mention that unless Flow is optimized correctly, loading busy talk pages would lag readers with older computers. Not to mention a nightmare to read. —
Esquivalience (
talk) 03:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Put some type of forum thing on the admin and 'crat noticeboards and their (non-archive) subpages, Arbitration/Requests/Case subpages, and "X for (deletion OR discussion)" pages, but NOT on talk pages. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 00:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. There is agreement from the main participants and original volunteer to end the Flow testing at WikiProject Hampshire for now, due to the pause of current development work. The only other Flow page on Enwiki currently is the sandbox. Following discussion at User talk:BethNaught/Draft Flow RfC and elsewhere, we all want to avoid a long and frustrating discussion about continuing the overall testing on this wiki at the moment, despite some editors willingness to continue, and so we're removing Flow from Enwiki for now, after converting the 2 existing pages back to wikitext, today.
In the future, if Flow improves to such an extent that Enwiki collectively decides we want to test it again in 1 or more locations, then it will be simple enough to follow that consensus and re-enable the extension here. We're (collectively) trying to resolve this amicably, and after much discussion, in various locations, this is the agreed upon process. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 23:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Wikitext talk page converted to Flow and other similar templates have been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Ppp
ery 01:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
m:Collaboration/Flow_satisfaction_survey/Report
This is the most extreme case of POV-pushing that I have ever seen come out of the WMF. The WMF selectively canvassed thousands of Talk page invitations to people who had actively converted their User_Talk pages to Flow, WP:Votestacking the survey as hard as possible in favor of Flow. When the report was being written, I requested that this concern be explicitly noted on the Flow-vs-Wikitext figures. I was told to wait and see how the report turned out. I was unsurprised that this concern was not addressed. I was however shocked-beyond-belief to discover that the authors had done the exact opposite. The report alleged that EnWiki community members posted messages attempting to bias the survey against Flow, alleging that the survey was ballot-stuffed against Flow, and asserting that survey responses critical of Flow were less than fully legitimate. As far as I'm aware, the only advertisement of the Survey on EnWiki were neutrally worded announcements on this page, on Central Notice, and (I think) on Village Pump. I have requested that citation be provided for the asserted inappropriate messages. [6]
The most noteworthy data point is that 52% of participants preferred wikitext talk pages, 38% preffered Flow, and 10% were neutral. Those results are particularly striking, given the massive canvassing of Flow's most enthusiastic fan base. Even more significantly, "Strongly Prefer Wikitext" still outnumbered "Strongly Prefer Flow" and "Somewhat Prefer Flow" combined.
Despite the uniformly dismal survey results on Flow, the entire report pushes a pro-Flow interpretation and phrasing as hard as possible. The report uses these canvassed results and biased interpretation to determine that Flow development should continue, and that the WMF should seek to expand deployment. Alsee ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: The most troublesome paragraph, and allegations, have been removed. Alsee ( talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Archive for converted wikitext talk page has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Community,
You might use Flow discussion boards on some wikis of the foundation.
Since you discussed about the Flow:Extension, I imagine you are using the Flow extension on your wiki.
To us, Flow discussion boards are very powerful. However, they can only be used on the discussion page of a specific page. This doesn't encourage collaboration because users usually visit the pages they watch and some discussions remains unanswered for days...
We believe a special page that gather all the discussions of the wiki will improve collaboration between users.
In the meantime, discussions boards are displayed in a separate tab. This can be confusing to newcomers. If the discussion boards were transcluded under the wiki page itself, it'd look like what users are used to see on other sites (like comments on a blog).
As Mediawiki developers, our team have apply for this Grant to develop such features.
If you think this project should be selected for a Project Grant, please add your name and rationale for endorsing at the bottom of this page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/ClemFlip/Wikifab/Various_types_of_transclusions_of_Flow_discussion_boards
Of course, other constructive feedback is welcome.
Thanks a lot for your help.
ClemFlip 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you discussed about the Flow:Extension, I imagine you are using the Flow extension on your wiki.- Flow was uninstalled from the English Wikipedia in November last year after an overwhelmingly negative response from the local editing community. It's unlikely to ever be reinstalled. — Scott • talk 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
a special page that gather all the discussions of the wikifor en-wikipedia would be roughly the size of the whole of Twitter combined and would instantly crash the browser of anyone who tried to load it. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)