Help talk:Structured Discussions/Glossary

Projects' talk pages
What is meant by "several projects' Talk pages"? Is it like WikiProjects, such as en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement or Wikimedia projects like Polish Wikibooks? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia projects, eventually. It hasn't been developed yet, but the underlying code is being built with that goal in mind. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Amir E. Aharoni: Sorry, I didn't ping you when I wrote these replies. Please let us know what needs further feedback. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Header
If I understand the definition of "Header" correctly, then I think that this English word doesn't quite fit it. The Merriam-Webster definition is "a word or series of words often in larger letters placed at the beginning of a passage or at the top of a page in order to introduce or categorize". I would call it something like "page description", "board description" or "subheading". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Enwiki refers to it (en:Wikipedia:Talk page layout) as the "Lead (bannerspace)". It's the somewhat stable content at the top of the Board/talkpage, that stores the banner-templates, introductions, and categories.
 * I think this is an example of why the entire Nomenclature page is given the proviso of "This nomenclature is development-facing, not user-facing, and terms may change when visible to the user." ;) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, we try to avoid easy "contractions" - people have a tendency to shorten things, so if we give something a 2-word title, and it can be logically shortened, then people will tend to do so. Preventing ambiguous contractions (eg. "page header" vs "title header") is something to always keep in mind. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Connective tissue
The current definition of "Subscription" is "the 'connective tissue' between a Board and a Topic". This doesn't completely explain what this is. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the devs to suggest something less metaphorical. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple boards
The definition of "Topic" says: "Topics may be subscribed to by multiple Boards". I don't really understand this. Does it mean something like "Several boards may subscribe to one topic"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, your re-phrasing is correct. In current wiki terms, it's the equivalent of one page getting transcluded into multiple destinations. I.e. this "Multiple boards" topic, could eventually be embedded in (subscribed to by) multiple other Boards. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Object
What is an "object" in the definition of "Post"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe an object is any future element, that isn't a simple discussion-post. Flow eventually aims to help smooth out some of the various workflows, such as page-deletion tagging, or user-unblock requests - so for example an "object" might be a component in a more intuitive unblock-system that smoothly leads from en:Template:Uw-ublock to a resolution. Or, an "object" might be as simple as attached metadata with a visual component, such as string of text explaining which Boards are subscribing to that particular topic. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been told that it was programmer jargon, and can go, for now. So I've removed the term "object" for the moment. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Atomic / parent
The current document says: "Post - an atomic reply, comment, or object whose parent is a Topic."

What does "atomic" refer to here? Does it qualify all the words after it or only "reply"?

Also, what does "whose parent is a Topic" refer to - only "object" or "reply, comment, or object"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's mirroring the description from Flow/Functional Specifications/Boards and Topics.
 * "Atomic" is here meaning "Unable to be split or made any smaller" - as in, there cannot be a "topic inside a topic". It's a formal hierarchy of container-types.
 * It refers to all of the 3 types, "reply, comment, or object". Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Post, comment, reply
This document in its current version doesn't make the relationship between post, comment and topic completely clear.

If "post" and "comment" are completely synonymous, I suggest the developers to remove one of them.

If I understand correctly, the current levels are:
 * Board (one per talk page)
 * Topic (multiple per board)
 * Post (multiple per Topic)
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Post (multiple per Topic)
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply
 * Reply

That's what I understand from the image, but I might be wrong. The text should make it clearer. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and I agree. Even if we use the term "comment" a lot informally, it would be good to settle on a single name for it in documentation. I shall nudge Maryana for feedback, before going ahead with removal though. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The definition of branch
The current document says:
 * Branch - a series of Posts that are all ultimately children of a single Post.

Isn't it the same as "topic"? Or can it also refer to lowest-level replies to one post?

And why not call it a "thread", as is common online? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this one, too. Will ask. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, a "branch=tangent", so I've removed that entirely.
 * It's not called a "thread", to avoid confusion with liquidthreads, and because threads could mean either the main subject of discussion, or one of the tangential or subthreads. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderation
The different meanings of "Moderation" don't appear here, but do appear in the translatable strings of the extension: Moderation, moderated user, moderated topic, moderator etc. Can it be added here?

Is it the same as "oversight"? If it is, can it be replaced by "oversight"? To be honest, I really dislike "oversight", because even in English it's hardly a word, and it's even harder to translate, but at least it's common in other pieces of MediaWiki. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A "moderated post" is a post that has been either: 1) Hidden, 2) Deleted, 3) Suppressed. I'll add that to the Nomenclature page.


 * The word "oversight" is mainly used on Enwiki (and in the RevDel code), because they still use the old mw:Extension:Oversight there, in addition to the newer mw:Manual:RevisionDelete. Flow uses the word "suppress" (as RevisionDelete calls it) throughout the Flow software. User:Okeyes (WMF) likes to rant about it, so I'll ping him here, in case I have those details wrong. ;) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary
"summary" and "summarize". The word "summary" has several translations into Russian and, I think, several meanings in the English.

1) What are the meanings of the word "summary" in English and what of them are used in the actions in Wikipedia?

2) What situations of application of the function "summary" in the Flow, what wiki-users have to do in the area "summary", what use cases? This "summary", what actions Suitable for this word, occur in in the en.wiki?

3) "summarize" - what action do this ? why not "edit summary"?

And please add more description for summary documentation nomenclature. Not all language versions of a wiki is the same way the same thing.

--Сунприат (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Flow developer, so I'll have to guess, but more or less, a summary is a brief description of what the conversation was about. It's not the same as an edit summary, but a an actual summary of the whole conversation. I'd translate it to Russian as "краткое содержание", "изложение", "конспект", or something along these lines.
 * This page says that summaries aren't implemented yet, but AFAIK, they already are.
 * Quiddity or DannyH can probably add details. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in replying.
 * The Summary section is meant to be like either: a hatnote, or, like en:Template:Discussion top. -- It is a location for a summary of the decision/consensus after a discussion has ended, or, a location to put templates like tracked.
 * The topic-summary is also the only location where Category-links work, for individual topics. (Putting category-links in a post, does nothing. Putting category-links in the Board Header-area, will add the page to a category.)
 * E.g. The French helpdesk uses a template to show whether a question has been answered yet: fr:Sujet:Scablgykzui9s3fv versus fr:Sujet:Sbutpsyd4mcz7gg1
 * Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you asked on IRC about: "1) I found, "poster" - author of the post. Then which is closer to the original "thank the author for a message" or "thank the author of this message?" related to this translation unit - Interesting question! Possibly can help with this one? Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually more of a question to the Flow developers. The qqq says "Title text of the button that will (when clicked) thank the editor of the comment" - is it the author or the editor of a revision? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found meaning in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poster - "1.One who posts a message. " But no more that in any dictionary. Not even in the urbandictionary.com. I added a bit to qqq. --Сунприат (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Update
Hello

I'm currently rewriting the documentation. For this purpose, this page has been completely updated.

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What the license of the documentation
Most Mediawiki help pages are public domain, as far as I know. Shouldn't this page be public domain too? --Psychoslave (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Fixed. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)