(Please read dev.wikimedia.org for some background on this project.) The articles for the new API:Data and developer hub are currently in the
API: namespace. I would like the pages to be in a new
dev: namespace. Here's why:
- They will render by default using a different skin, "Blueprint" (see it on the prototype). The easiest way to show articles with a different skin is using Extension:SkinPerNamespace.
- I want to use Flow on all the talk pages of these articles. The easiest way for this to happen is by setting
$wgFlowOccupyNamespacesto this dev namespace.
- It's mildly useful to be able to search only these pages.
- The existing namespaces don't fit articles "to encourage third-party developers to use our data and APIs".
- Different audience: "a technical manual for the MediaWiki software. It contains information for developers and system administrators on installing, managing and developing for the MediaWiki software."
- Close, and it's what I'm using for articles to start, but an article like API:Recent changes stream is not about the MediaWiki API.
- Main (default) namespace
- proliferation of articles, hard to search.
Note the motivation to use a different skin and an easier discussion system (Flow) is that the Data and developer hub focuses on third-party developers who are not MediaWiki hackers or wiki editors. (Of course we hope some will align with our cause and contribute to our projects.)
None of these are definitive, but they lean towards creating a dedicated
dev: namespace. I'm interested in technical alternatives for the first (e.g. use Extension:SkinPerPage instead, or use SkinPerCategory logic to set a different default skin). You can comment here or in phab:T369.
If this is for documentation/discussion relating to the API, then why not stick with 'API' as the namespace? I think 'dev' is going to be a very confusing name, as the vast majority of this wiki (across all namespaces) could come under the category 'development'. Or 'developer'. Or whatever 'dev' stands for. And what would happen to the existing content in the API namespace?
Also, I am not sure what the purpose of an alternative skin is. Isn't that confusing, to have different parts of the site look completely different? If I'm browsing the site in Monobook, say, and then click a link to this new namespace, then I would assume I was on a different site. Doesn't seem very user-friendly to me.
Yes, I don't know why change the skin. That would be rather unexpected and shocking to a user from mediawiki.org that reaches one of those pages from RecentChanges or a link from another page.
The dicussion about the namespace is still open and we can evaluate the implications of using "API" instead of "Dev".
About the different skin, the starting point was to create an own site with own look&feel, following the example of most API/developer sites versus their products. The intention was to avoid Vector's outdated look & feel and mediawiki.org's fully charged sidebar wiith links that could be definitely confusing to third party developers not interested in MediaWiki itself or in contributing patches.
While I was among the very determined advocates of improving mediawiki.org instead of creating a separate site, I agree with the original problem. While using "a different skin in a same site" might confuse to some, I think the confusion and loss will be higher and more expensive if we stick to the current mediawiki.org interface.
In fact, I think this exercise might be useful to sanitize and improve mediawiki.org's UI. For us regular users it is easy to become blind to the problems it has, but this project is all about reaching out to new developers and engage them in the use of our APIs (which can lead to other type of contributions over time).
Here's how I think this should work:
- Use the existing API namespace for this.
- The name is clear and unambiguous, unlike 'dev'
- A new namespace leaves the question about what to do with existing API pages - move them (in which case the API namespace will end up empty, aside from redirects) or leave them (in which case we will end up with pairs of similar articles in different namespaces). Neither of these seem like a good outcome.
- Create an appropriate hub page (if it doesn't already exist) which is the focal point for this new sub-site.
- Use this as an opportunity to improve the content of that namespace as well as adding whatever other API-consumer-related documentation is appropriate. I am comfortable for the API documentation to be written with a focus on third-party use, rather than an MW developer focus.
- If there are pages in the API namespace that are not appropriate to be there, then they can be moved.
- I can sort of see why you want a separate skin, but I don't really agree with it, and I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Unless you plan to ban internal links to other namespaces (including links to user pages), there will be plenty of places where users will 'break out' of the skin, which will be confusing for the third-party users, as much as it will be for the MW regulars who suddenly find their skin changing as they navigate the site. Perhaps a useful compromise would be to use the separate skin for anonymous (non-logged-in) visitors only. Would that work?
I've just been having a play with the proposed skin, and to be honest it leaves me a bit lost.
- I couldn't find any way to get to a discussion page.
- I eventually managed to find the edit/view history links, which are hidden away. Not sure I like the fact that editing/involvement is being discouraged in this way.
- A lot of the features I am used to (edit section, add to watchlist, save as PDF, etc.) I couldn't find at all - I assume they have simply been removed to make things 'cleaner'.
Having had a play with the skin, my feeling is that there is possibly a third approach, which might satisfy the two different camps (the people who basically want a static website that is easy to use and navigate, aimed at third-party consumers of the API vs. the people who want editable online documentation, and for it all to be in one place).
My revised suggestion is the same as what I wrote in my previous post, except that the whole skin business is abandoned - the pages are part of mediawiki.org, and remain in the site skin in the same manner as all other pages on the site. Then, in addition to this, a separate site is set up, using a variant of the new skin, which pulls it data from the API namespace of MediaWiki and presents it in a static format that is very friendly to third-party consumers. The new skin would be broadly like the prototype, with a couple of changes:
- There is no functionality related to editing, logging in, etc. except insomuch as is appropriate in relation to the next point
- There is a clear notice (possibly as part of the header, or possibly as part of the slide-out menu) saying this content comes from mediawiki.org - "to edit, discuss or otherwise contribute to it click here".
Obviously, there are details to be worked-out, but what do you think of this approach?
I'm not convinced (at all) about the idea of a separate site that will bring extra work and extra maintenance. Still, do you have any idea of how this would work and how much effort should be put to build it? My instinct says that I'd rather put that effort improving Blueprint skin.
I can see the benefits and consistency of using the API: namespace as you propose, combined with api.wikimedia.org and a central focus on web API documentation. The more precise but also narrower "API" meme leaves aside datasets, websockets, and what not, but as you say we could always highlight related technologies in the main page and wherever it is appropriate. It's not that the "Dev" meme doesn't bring its own inconveniences, so we will need to evaluate both.
About the skin, I would like to ask for a chance to try it, with a plan for a quick revert if needed. The risk of user confusion is theoretical. Users deal with changes of UI by clicking links all the time. They might be confused or satisfied depending on many factors. The deployment of this extension in mediawiki.org as an optional skin has its own benefits, and would get us more feedback from users willing to give it a try.
Blueprint skin has some virtues and some problems. The possibility of being deployed in a production server contributes to highlight the serious problems and work on them. The lack of Discussion link is a known bug that I just set as blocker of the deployment of this extension in mediawiki.org. If we (and that includes you) find more blockers, we will add them. Just find/create specific Phabricator tasks to discuss them.
I have no objection to the new skin being enabled as an optional skin on mediawiki.org, for those who want to try it out.
I think there would be a lot of objections (from me and many others) if it were made the default skin, even if only for anons and/or new users.
I don't know what other people think about it being the default skin for a single namespace, but I've already made my feelings known on this.
For me, the biggest risk of confusion is the skin changing randomly as you navigate within the site. As you say, confusion within the skin itself is something that can (hopefully) be resolved by further user-testing and development. You also need to balance the ease of use for new users against the disorientation and confusion for existing users, but in most cases this can be mitigated by the fact that users can pick their own skin.
This link does not work. The file is missing from that location. Other extensions at the same location have a version 1_25, but Collection 1_25 does not.
There is such a proposal, see [Wikitech-l] Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org. This is the place where consensus for mediawiki.org changes is checked, hence I'm opening the discussion here.
Also, some users have already started disabling LiquidThreads on some talk pages to use wikitext instead: what to do? Should that be done on more or less pages?
LiquidThreads was an unmitigated disaster, in my view, and has made the site worse for being here. History before it was enabled was lost (or, at least, very hard to find) the links in e-mails never take you to the thread they're supposed to, the UI is horrible and it is difficult to find things you are looking for. It actually makes the site harder to use for anyone at all experienced in wikis, not easier, and so should never have been enabled.
I haven't used Flow, so I don't know how it compares, but I would certainly vote for removing LiquidThreads! If Flow actually works in a wiki-like way (i.e. you can view history, see the state of the page before it was enabled, edit comments where necessary, etc.) then I might be persuaded that it is a good replacement, but given our experience with LiquidThreads I am fairly sceptical. For it to work it would have to be something that works inside existing wiki pages, rather than fighting against them. It would also be a requirement that all LT content can be 'migrated' to Flow so that it is not lost or broken. It is not acceptable for it to simply be shunted off to an 'old threads' namespace and abandoned - it needs to appear where it was originally posted.
The issue is as much about how the extension works behind-the-scenes and how well it integrates with the rest of the wiki, as about the interface it provides.
For example, I don't want to lose my current talk page, nor its history. If what is there can be converted seamlessly to Flow, without losing my ability to view old revisions of the page (pre-flow and post-flow), archive things in the way I have done in the past, include some non-thread-like content (e.g. introduction section) and link to specific items without the links breaking as items change (e.g. if they move to 'page 2' of the listings) then it might be viable. Otherwise, please just remove LiquidThreads and don't mess up the wiki with further incompatible plugins.
PS - From reading the wikitech-l post, it looks like once again this is a decision being forced upon us without any kind of local consensus. MediaWiki.org should not be treated as a test site, without community buy-in. If you want people to be antagonistic towards Flow, and to resent its presence on the wiki, then that is a pretty good way of going about it.
Also, I didn't realise quite how experimental/incomplete Flow currently is. Therefore, my vote is (for now at least) a firm no!
The comment from Risker/Anne sums things up pretty well, as far as I'm concerned.
Please just remove LiquidThreads and come back to us with a proposal for Flow when it is out of beta and feature-complete.
Please no back to plain wikitext talk pages, at least for talk pages with hundreds of posts (like Current_issues and Support_desk). Wikitext talk pages are terrible to follow and archiving is as bad as the wikitext discussion format itself. I prefer LQT (in it's fairly bad state) before wikitext, but i welcome a move to Flow, after it is in a workable state (see, e.g., this mail).
See also[edit | edit source]
- Thread:Project:Support desk/Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org
Is it possible to have a complete list of LQT pages on this wiki? That would help the discussion.
Certainly it makes sense to use modern discussion software on Project:Support desk, as that is a high-traffic forum-style page which is aimed at IT professionals and server administrators more than wiki users.
I agree that for the support desk, and maybe a couple of other support-related pages, a more forum-like approach is sensible.
However, one does have to question why we use the wiki for these purposes at all. We don't use the wiki for internal issue tracking, so I'm not sure why we are using it for support. I am not aware of any other company or open source project that would consider using a wiki for handling support issues - it is clearly the wrong tool for the job.
Perhaps a more sensible solution would be to use support desk software for handling the support desk, rather than trying to shoe-horn non-wiki-like tools into the wiki, which will inevitably bring unsatisfactory results (as has been shown with LQT).
FWIW, there was such a proposal too: phabricator:T31923.
Search is pretty good at finding LQT talk pages: .
Special:PagesWithProp also works.  - currently LQT is on 1,639 pages - (I'm not sure why that number differs (1,567) from the search that Nemo linked?)
I'm asking devs for help getting a more detailed listing of All pages ordered by size (number of posts).
The Flow/LQT_pages are interesting, thanks. Just for fun I looked at the even (non-talk) namespace numbers: One entry in 90 might be odd (3 contributions counted as 12), and for the Project:Forum redirect I didn't get why it's counted as 94.
So far, after HappyDog has questioned the existence of Project:Support Desk, I didn't see a single person defending it. It looks like we're ready to wrap it up?
Once the page is converted to Flow, AFAIK we can just fully protect it (the board) and add two big buttons to the header, linking existing support venues (i.e. StackExchange and mediawiki-l).
Well, I'd defend it, but I'm not sure how to bring that in a task that aims to "Install Q&A system at ask.wikimedia.org". I'm still expectant to see what would be the resolution. What I'd say for now is that I don't have an account in stackexchange and I don't plan to help there.
- Once the page is converted to Flow, AFAIK we can just fully protect it (the board) and add two big buttons to the header, linking existing support venues (i.e. StackExchange and mediawiki-l).
Surely making a decision is dependent on the resolution of phab:T31923? No point doing any of that (freezing, redirecting, etc.) until a decision has been made about what those support venues are? Doesn't really affect me as I neither use nor curate it, but it feels a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse.
Well, as far as I can understand, having the support desk converted would break the currently expected workflows (e.g. the moves described in its header?). The path of least resistance seems to be the consolidation of existing venues rather than the creation of a on-wiki support desk with a new discussion system.
Last edit: 07:14, 24 March 2015
Note: We'll be holding an IRC office hour for Flow, this Monday at 19:30 UTC / 12:30 PDT. You can find information on how to get online, including a link to a webchat option if you don't have an IRC client, on the meta office hours page. The intended focus is for questions about the LQT -> Flow conversion here. Everyone is welcome for discussions and question answering. Logs will be posted on the meta office hour page afterwards. Thanks.
Few minutes of testing were enough to discover that
- T93723: Conversion to Flow eats content
- T93721: Links to LiquidThreads threads don't work after conversion to Flow
WMF, please ensure you table such proposals only after you've thoroughly tested the conversion. Thanks.
I don't know if it's just an unfortunate coincidence, or what, but since this announcement, the usability of LQT has degraded a lot...
First I reported that submitting a reply doesn't display the reply unless you refresh the page (task T93374).
Today hitting "show preview" displays a confirmation dialog about leaving the page, and if you proceed, you end up submitting an edit to the underlying page and not on the message you was editing!
PD: Reported as task T94089
Note phab:T101362 A #Templates tag for tasks related with creating/fixing MediaWiki templates?
When I'm making changes to templates in API docs, or deciding how to move source code links from git.wikimedia.org to diffusion, I'm not sure how to broaden the discussion beyond a particular template's talk page. Is this a good forum for it? Would a phabricator task help or make it worse?
(I'm a technical writer at the WMF, hi!)
There it is again. Since the release of the 1.25.0-version the 1.24.2-version is marked as LTS version again on the download page. This has happend already in September 2014 when 1.24.0 was launched. Someone stated, that 1.27.0 is going to become a LTS version and not 1.24.0. (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Project:Support_desk/Long_term_support_release).
Has anyone had seen this error before while converting/rendering
an assembled book in to pdf ?
Yes, it's rather common. It can have several reasons, so it's best if you mention the specific page which is giving you the error.
I came across the page User:Lil Jay Rap Legend when cleaning up images on Commons. This user page is clearly for promotional purposes only and entirely inappropriate to the purpose of this wiki. I couldn't find any deletion process here on MediaWiki, so I'm requesting here to have the page User:Lil Jay Rap Legend deleted. --
Link to list open tasks from the extension's page displays both open and closed tasks
That's because now in phabricator, the project page goes to the workboard (see task T89865).
Is there any other viable URL that we could use to link to all open tasks of a project? All searches give ugly URLs without a project name on them, just numeric codes or similar.
I think there is no such feature any longer: the only option would be the advanced maniphest search, but the projects selectors don't accept strings, only PHID* variables.
Maybe there is a way to get all the PHID numbers or the project description URLs for all projects, we could then store them in a switch.
The workboard view is not the problem itself. Showing also closed tasks by default is the problem and will get fixed by the next update: phab:T90661.
The current situation has become even worse. Now those links lead to a 404 ERROR page!
Something claiming to be an "IPA phonetic alphabet" popup intercepts my keyboard input (skin Monobook, browser Chrome, visual editor off, template data on, no other tricks). It also happens here, I cannot add the colons required for indentation, it appears as some gibberish. I cannot add < (more gibberish).
This is the
stupid Universal Language Selector IME, the little keyboard icon that appears next to the textarea (when the textarea is focused), that has a shortcut-key for switching keyboards.
Click on that keyboard and change the input method to native.
Thanks, presumably I somehow managed to input a key combination switching it in an undesired position, and surviving a "restart browser" in that position. I certainly didn't open it, until I figured out that this helps to reset "native keyboard". Is there a way to get rid of it completely? I can barely guess what IPA tries to express in very simple cases, I'll never need to input it.
Thanks, I think I found a more permanent solution on Disabling the tool for your user account hopefully good for all browsers and all Wikimedia projects:
- Skip the "from the sidebar" blurb (I failed to grok it, maybe it is for Vector)
- Interpret "from the Keyboard menu" as…
- click edit on any page that can be edited
- click on the input method icon directly below the input area at the end of the row (right side for LTR)
- click on the last entry in the popup with a tool icon
- click disable IME everywhere, click on apply, ready.
Hi, I've no idea what Topic talk:Sewfq489tp3iic43 is, either a weird name in the main name space, or a weird talk page for a namespace not needing any talk pages at all, but it's definitely unrelated to Topic:Sewfq489tp3iic43, please move it without leaving a redirect.
Move to what place? You're the author of the talk page: Is it really needed, or maybe it can be deleted? How you created these talk page? :/
It's an experiment, I tried to figure out why an existing Topic:Sewfq489tp3iic43 contains a red link to itself, and is actually always shown as red link. Additional test:
Apparently there is no "Topic talk", the experiment ended up as article. JFTR this bogus article could be moved to Thread_talk:Project:Current_issues/Topic_talk:Sewfq489tp3iic43, as entertainment for the folks migrating Liquid threads to Flow, apparently namespace 91 is empty at the moment. But the red Topic:Sewfq489tp3iic43 is really wrong, it exists.
I've been trying to start a new discussion in the support desk but when I click on 'Save Page', my browser keeps reloading the Support desk page in editing mode with my post still inside the editor and not yet posted in the discussion.
(and apparently I can post here without a problem)
Using OS X Yosemite10.10.2. Tried Google Chrome 41.0.2272.118, and Safari 8.0.4.
It's completely broken script hell, Chrome never knows what the URL is, what the state is (crying "don't leave unsaved page" long after it was saved), wild guess, was your attempt over a slow/shaky connection? Maybe test a Thread:Project:Support desk/Cannot starting a new discussion in support desk/reply to figure out what's wrong.
It wasn't over a slow or unstable connection. It seemed to be related to the inclusion of external URLs, you can see my various experiments in the edit history found in Thread:Project:Support desk/Cannot starting a new discussion in support desk/reply
I was able to modify my original MediaWiki issue by eliminating the http:// part of the URL to my wiki and I was able to post successfully.
But yes, totally broken script. I've been getting those "don't leave unsaved page" prompts more often now.