Extension talk:StructuredDiscussions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Any questions about the StructuredDiscussions extension.

Uvas magicas (talkcontribs)

I have tried to configure flow for the additional namespaces like this:

$ wgNamespaceContentModels [Movie_discussion] = 'flow-board';

$ wgNamespaceContentModels [NS_Pilm_discussion] = 'flow-board';

But it does not work in any of those 2 configurations, either:

$ wgNamespaceContentModels [TALK_ Movie] = 'flow-board';

how can I make it to put flow in additional (custom) namespaces

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)
Uvas magicas (talkcontribs)


Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

And do you experience any other unexpected behavior apart from seeing wikitext talk pages?

Uvas magicas (talkcontribs)

no, nothing

Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talkcontribs)

In the places where you have "Movie_discussion", "NS_Pilm_discussion", etc., try replacing those with the namespace numbers for those namespaces. You've probably created these namespaces with $wgExtraNamespaces[1235] = 'Movie_discussion'; where 1235 is some number; use that number to then set $wgNamespaceContentModels[1235] = 'flow-board';

Uvas magicas (talkcontribs)


define("NS_Música", 50000); // This MUST be even.

define("NS_Música_DISCUSIÓN", 50001); // This MUST be the following odd integer.

$wgExtraNamespaces[NS_Música] = "Música";

$wgExtraNamespaces[NS_Música_DISCUSIÓN] = "Música_discusión";

$wgNamespaceProtection[NS_Música] = array( 'editMúsica' ); // permission "editfoo" required to edit the foo namespace

$wgNamespacesWithSubpages[NS_Música] = true;            // subpages enabled for the foo namespace

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['editMúsica'] = true;      // permission "editfoo" granted to users in the "sysop" group


$wgNamespaceContentModels[50001] = 'flow-board';

and then the result was that in the discussion pages of the music namespace, flow was active.

Reply to "custom namespaces"

The Flow Discussion is broken on Miraheze.

Mar9122 (talkcontribs)

Please help?

Reply to "The Flow Discussion is broken on Miraheze."

New threads cannot be filtered as "new pages" in recent changes

4 (talkcontribs)


When using recentchanges new threads cannot be filtered as "new pages" and are instead only shown when "page edits" is selected.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Go to Special:Recentchanges
  2. Add the "topic" namespace
  3. Remove "page creations" as a filter
  4. The URL should look something like "https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&translations=filter&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&namespace=2600&limit=500&days=30&urlversion=2"


Threads created less than 30 days being shown in the list.


No threads are shown.


When all changes are shown each entry is noted with a "N" symbol that shows it is like a new page. If this behaviour is intentional at least that should be fixed.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I've followed your steps and I see new threads. Same happens when I copy your URL.

Concerning the N symbol, I only have it attached to new topics.

It is wired to have so many differences between what you see and what I see. (talkcontribs) (talkcontribs)

To clarify the note on the first post above, all new threads are marked with "N" , edits or replies to existing threads and such are correctly noted as "page edits". The point was that if these should new threads are considered page edits then "N" should not appear next to any of them.

Example: (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Urtyra7v7xr9dw1d)

(diff | hist) . . N Project:Support desk — Mediawiki Installations fails: Die Hauptseite konnte nicht erstellt werden: Failed to update page row to use new revision.; 09:35 . . +1,060‎ . . 2a02:8071:b5ac:1d00:f94f:16fd:fd19:c643 (talk)
Reply to "New threads cannot be filtered as "new pages" in recent changes"

How to create a new conversation page

Sokote zaman (talkcontribs)


How to create a new talk page other than the discussion page and user?

Ciencia Al Poder (talkcontribs)
Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "How to create a new conversation page"
Johnywhy (talkcontribs)
机智的小鱼君 (talkcontribs)

Put all $wgNamespaceContentModels[NS_*] under define("NS_*",*);

Reply to "Bug? "NS_TALK" is not working."

Accessing talk page from topic in PHP

Tinss (talkcontribs)


I'm trying to write a hook that redirects topic pages (linked from notifications) to the talk page from which it belongs. I know there is a link to the talk page on the topic page, but it's an extra step I'd like to get rid of. I'm using the ArticleFromTitle hook and after searching for hours, I'm still baffled as to how I'm suppose to get the talk page's Title object from the topic's Title object.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Tinss (talkcontribs)

Thank you very much! Your example was easily adaptable to my use case. In order to redirect I called $context->getOutput()->redirect($subject->getFullURL($query)); from inside the ArticleFromTitle hook.

Thedonquixotic (talkcontribs)

I'm new to the mediawiki world, and I'm currently researching it in order to decide whether or not I want to use it. I think this extensions is very much needed, as I find talk pages extremely confusing in their presentation etc. I'm speaking as someone who works as a UX Designer and Developer, I'm technically inclined, and I actually know conceptually how talk pages work now, but even so it's very out of step with the UI norms the rest of the web have adopted and a more modern update like this seems necessary.

Also as much as this extension is needed, there is still a lot more features it could use. I think allowing for deeper threading is one thing. Or are these discussions meant to be shallow (in the sense of tree hierarchy depth, not content)?

It might be useful to have shallow comments discussion sections (like you would have on stack exchange or disqus) which have limited nested threads, and then have a deeper "forum" like format which allowed for deeper threading and possibly greater multimedia controls. Just a thought.

Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

I’m not very familiar with UX terms. What do you mean by deep discussions? Topics within topics? I don’t see where would it be useful to have more than the two current levels (page and topic). Replies to specific replies (i.e. what is currently available on Stack Exchange in two-level form: answers and comments on answers)? As far as I know, Structured Discussions supports this kind of deepness infinitely (or at least more than just one or two levels).

Thedonquixotic (talkcontribs)

By deep I mean the number of levels deep a thread can go. It can only go 3. Which I think is good for a comment section but maybe not for a more detailed conversation/debate on a topic. Perhaps having two forms of feedback would be good? One for commentary and then another for deeper topic discussion?

Reply to "Just some feedback"

Suggestion:Change flow topic display title to match topic title

Summary by Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)


Currently info pages such as https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Tuxqtxu1kp6n1m1q&action=info use the same displaytitle as the sort key. Aside from not reflecting reality, it makes searching for flow titles a mess, see topic%3A+contentmodel%3Aflow-board .


While searching for thread posts might never be possible, it would be at least useful to be able to search prior discussions by title. This only works with structureddiscussions boards but not threads, e.g. it is possible to find this board "Extension_talk:StructuredDiscussions" but not a thread like Topic:Ukzjwfa58ewp4zm6 without knowing the whole strange id.

Proposed solution

  1. Add displaytitle (Help:Magic words#DISPLAYTITLE) in each thread as its thread title, e.g. :Topic:Ukzjwfa58ewp4zm6 -> displaytitle: "Issues with StructuredDiscussions" .
  2. This will presumably be shown in search once this task (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143396) is resolved.
Reply to "Suggestion:Change flow topic display title to match topic title"
Kaldari (talkcontribs)

Mostly putting this here for my own reference... The major issues that I currently see with StructuredDiscussions being a good replacement for article talk pages are:

  • There’s no archiving system
  • It seems old topics are not in-page searchable
  • List of topics (in the "Browse topics" UI) isn’t scannable. Seems to only show a maximum of 11 topics at a time.
  • Copying and pasting is better than it used to be but still a bit wonky. For example, line break handling is buggy.
  • The UI is confusing. Some examples:
    • Does “Hide” just hide for me or everyone?
    • What is “Recently…”?
    • What’s the difference between the 2 different “Reply”s?
Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)


Concerning the list of topics, when you scroll it down, it will load more results.

For all your other comments, there are already requests (and tickets) made. I can link them to you of really necessary.

Kaldari (talkcontribs)

Yes, if you know ticket numbers for any of those, please post them. Thanks!

Here are a couple more I just noticed:

  • After you jump to an old topic from "Browse topics", it disappears off the screen (presumably because content above the section you jumped to loads in after).
  • The "cur" and "prev" links in the history seem to mostly not function, but when they are available they seem to do different things than they normally do.
Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Here are a few links that would fit your reports:

  • search in old topics covers some of your questions, like the list of topics not searchable and the archiving (archiving can be a status you search for).
  • copy/pasting not working properly has no specific ticket but changing the storage format may help (T174374)
  • Confusing UI
    • how hide works: add tooltips
    • what is "recently" has no ticket, but there are something about relative timestamps to improve. You can hover the date to have a better timestamp.
    • the two reply buttons are related to the threading, currently based on user selection rather than being hard-coded into the data structure as they are now. (T105438 and T108998)
  • The problem when you jump to an old topic is to be recondidered, to have, a pagination instead of infinite scrolling (:T132817). This is overall covered by reconsider how to navigate on a Flow board
  • History integration is currently poor in consistency with everything else (T85563), that impacts the "cur" and "next" links.

You can find here the most urgent improvements that have been decided last year, based on user feedback. Most of your cases are listed there.

Reply to "Issues with StructuredDiscussions"
TitusiMW (talkcontribs)

Thanks in advance for any help/pointers.

TitusiMW (talkcontribs)

Folks any help with this?

Reply to "Math is not Rendering in Flow"