Talk:Flow

Jump to: navigation, search

About this discussion

The Collaboration team has enabled Flow on this talk page.

Previous feedback is on Talk:Flow Portal/Archive2 (using old Liquid Threads), and on our labs server.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Base (talkcontribs)

when trying to add a link I type "[[" and have link target already copied and ready to be pasted. Instead that damn thing deletes the two brackets (took me some effort to paste them here) and opens some weird window I want not. How do I fight it? --~~~~

Base (talkcontribs)

Oh I found the button in the corner. How do I make the markup editing mode the default one? --Base (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to "unwanted menu"
Paweł Ziemian (talkcontribs)

Is there a way to undo or hide specific editing of topic title?

Paweł Ziemian (talkcontribs)

There is an example of edit topic title in the history view. The only option I see is to hide whole topic. How to hide this revision?

Kszapsza (talkcontribs)

There is an option in menu, eg. I just changed "edit title" to "edited title" :)

Reply to "Edited title"
Kghbln (talkcontribs)

I have seen e.g. Skin talk:Blueprint deleted since LiquidThreads was added there. That's perfectly fine but there is still a problem. Is there anyone happening to know how to activate Flow on it? I have been trying to get an answer for this but I am afraid that there currently seems to be still not alternative to LiquidThreads on this wiki. I believe we do not want continue antediluvian talk on talk pages, do we?

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Ah, this diff provides an answer. Keeping fingers crossed that the necessary user right was already assigned.

This comment was hidden by Malarz pl (history)
Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Preventing more pages being signed up as LQT, once an entire wiki has been converted, is in the team's current 'sprint', as phab:T107068.

Converting more of the (both existing and redlink/empty) pages on this wiki, is being done at a slower rate. For the time being it is opt-in for usertalkpages (signup at Flow/Request Flow on a page!), and rollout beyond that is considered on a case-by-case basis. There is a desire to fully convert one or more namespaces (as has so far been done at Cawp/Catalan's Viquipèdia_Discussió: namespace, and throughout the WMF's officewiki), but there's no current timeline for that, or proposed plans for which namespace(s) might be first.

The userright for enabling Flow is currently just assigned to the Staff group (and only used by DannyH the Product Manager of Flow) and a roleaccount used by the extension itself.

A more open system (with a more advanced feature set) for letting a wider usergroup (e.g. admins) deal with this, is being worked on as phab:T96302, and to more easily let individuals opt in their usertalkpages at a wiki that has consensus for doing so, is being worked on as phab:T98270.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your detailed insight and the pointers. I guess I will sit tight. Luckily my user talk already went Flow. :)

Reply to "So what do we do now?"
Eman235 (talkcontribs)

See Topic:Slj9sktargvx8e9o, where interwiki links are not displaying for some reason. Topic:Slja58foz7lxi0bj has the same problem, an invisible link to w:de:Lee Konitz. Actually, that is the workaround: typing w: before the link.

Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Did you create these links using VisualEditor? If so, I think this T95850.

Reply to "Links not working?"
Kvardek du (talkcontribs)

Hello,

I'm very happy to see the delivery of Flow! Is is possible to activate it on my talk page on French ? (fr:User talk:Kvardek du) Thank you very much.

PS : Agamitsudo, sat just next me in Mexico DF, asks the same for his user talk page (fr:User talk:Agamitsudo).

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I've added both your names to Flow/Request Flow on a page. :-) [Edit:] and now that I check, I see it was already done. >.<

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Well, for a start I peronally think it will be nice to have Flow activated on this wiki for all pages. Or as a workaround: Is there something like {{#useflow:1}} allowing to do it manually for particular pages?

Another thing that makes me a bit worried. With LQT I had approximately five new messages a day, after the conversion to Flow I get only one a week. Dunno if just nothing is happening right not or if something else is in the water.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

I have seen people adding {{#useliquidthreads:1}} to talk pages after the migration to Flow has been done due to lacking knowledge on how to activate Flow manually. So if this talk page is still somehow being watched by developers it will be nice to get a response. This will probably now get messy on this wiki.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

See this flead (FlowThread)

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I responded at the other thread. (Sorry for the delay, I was quite exhausted after wikimania, and took most of last week to recover.)

Reply to "Activate Flow"

Any reason why the thread width is fixed/limited?

5
MWJames (talkcontribs)

As [0, 1] shows the right side of a thread is either fixed or unused, any particular reason for this engaging Flow design because LQT did in fact (as far as I remember) use the full browser width!

[0] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1245473/8619452/6cdc918c-2717-11e5-8956-bd224af5103f.png

[1] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1245473/8619617/ba5bbd88-2718-11e5-9f83-60ee72b2ef19.png

Diego Moya (talkcontribs)

In the main board, you can use the full window width by closing the "About this discussion" panel.

Web sites typically use narrow columns because they're better for reading long text. Jumping to the next line is easier in them when reaching the end of each line.

MWJames (talkcontribs)

I can't follow this argument, most website I visit doesn't show the behaviour as outlined in the attached screen shots. Also asking me to "closing the "About this discussion" panel." isn't really intuitive nor should it be compared to the previous LQT where Flow claimed to be an equal replacement for it. I would have expected that Flow will appropriately resize in a modern browser but this isn't the case as shown in [0, 1].

Diego Moya (talkcontribs)

The text does resize and reflow if you make the window narrower, it just has a maximum width of 2/3rds of the screen by default. This is fairly common in current design trends for blogs and news sites. Several users complained about the text not using the whole screen, so the developers added that possibility with an option to collapse the unused panel to the right.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think I understand MWJames concern, which is regarding the narrow span of non-responsive-width, between 895px and 1165px - I've filed this as phab:T107241.

Reply to "Any reason why the thread width is fixed/limited?"
The Quixotic Potato (talkcontribs)

Just like Liquid Threads this "Flow" is confusing, ugly and very very buggy. How can we get rid of it? Not just on this page, I mean everywhere.

In Internet Explorer 9 it is very very buggy. For example, the textbox where I am typing this in is incredibly long (high). I have to press Page Down 19 times until I reach the "Add Topic"-button.

I wish I could report this bug on the Phabricator but I cannot because the account registering procedure of the Phabricator is bugged.

Reply to "How to get rid of "Flow"?"

Accidentally converted User pages into Flow talk pages.

3
217.137.227.150 (talkcontribs)

Just installed flow, got it working great on my talk pages however upon trying to get it to work with User_Talk pages I accidentally used the "User" namespace when converting via "convertNamespaceFromWikitext.php".

Is there a way of easilly converting back? I assume not which is a bit unfortunate. If it means losing the content on the User pages is there perhaps an easy way of just destroying all the flow pages?

81.96.55.129 (talkcontribs)

Ok, got it all fixed, had to edit via the database and so far it doesnt seem to have broken anything which is good!

(If anyone is wondering how I even managed this to begin with, its because I accidentally used a space between User and Talk which was fairly stupid of me. Should have made a back up before doing changes like this... live and learn though).

Some caveats are you still have the template at the top, but I guess thats easier to fix than rewriting the content in the destroyed namespace.

First up, get the namespace ID for the namespace you want to revert back. In my case it was "2"

SELECT * FROM `page` WHERE `page_namespace`=2 AND `page_content_model`="flow"

Double check you have the right rows before proceeding, dont want to make an issue even worse.

Then run the query:

DELETE FROM `page` WHERE `page_namespace`=2 AND `page_content_model`="flow"

Now to convert the archived pages back to what they should be:

SELECT * FROM `page` WHERE `page_title` LIKE "%/Archive_1" AND `page_namespace`=2

Double check again with the above select that you have the right rows.

UPDATE `page` SET `page_title`= TRIM(TRAILING "/Archive_1" FROM page_title) WHERE `page_title` LIKE "%/Archive_1" AND `page_namespace`=2

Once sure, run:

UPDATE `page` SET `page_title`= TRIM(TRAILING "/Archive_1" FROM page_title) WHERE `page_title` LIKE "%/Archive_1" AND `page_namespace`=2

Mattflaschen-WMF (talkcontribs)

First, backups are a good suggestion, especially on small wikis when it's pretty fast to make a backup before running such a script.

As far as repairing it, if someone else has this issue I would recommend instead using Manual:DeleteBatch.php and Manual:MoveBatch.php . That will leave your wiki in a more consistent state (the move logs should reflect reality, etc., deleted pages will be in the delete logs and can be undeleted).

You can build the required text files from the DB.

Reply to "Accidentally converted User pages into Flow talk pages."
DannyH (WMF) (talkcontribs)

We're releasing a new feature this week: Mark as resolved, an update to the moderation feature formerly known as Lock. It's out now, and you can test it out on Talk:Sandbox.

There were a couple problems with Lock that we wanted to solve:

  • There were two fields -- a topic summary, and a reason for locking -- and it wasn't really clear which one you should use when you're closing a discussion.
  • The visual difference between locked and open topics was a bit confusing; it wasn't obvious which one you're supposed to be paying attention to.
  • When you're scrolling down the page looking for open threads, you had to scroll through closed threads to find them.

In the new feature, when you choose "Mark as resolved" in the topic menu, a checkmark is added next to the topic title, and you're prompted to write a summary for the conversation. When a topic's resolved, the entry fields go away, and you can't write new posts. Resolved topics are collapsed by default, just showing the title, date and the summary. You can click on the header to see the whole conversation.

If you reopen a resolved topic, you're prompted to add a summary, or edit the existing summary. You can also add, edit or delete existing summaries at any time.

There's an additional piece that will be out in a couple weeks -- a byline for the summary, so you can see who wrote it, or who last edited it.

I hope you like the new feature, and please let me know what you think!

Eloquence (talkcontribs)

Neat! :-)

Сунприат (talkcontribs)

Where "Cancel" button? This is strange. 1) I tried to close the first topic "New topic" (Mattflaschen-WMF ) in the sandbox 2) In "New topic" no button "Skip summary", but there is in other topics 3) From the menu choose "cancel the closing thopic", I think that the closure has not happened, but in the history I closed it and restored. 4) I want to see the conversation to write a summary and do not remember there was towards the end of the conversation 5) When I click "cancel the closing thopic" in menu the edit summary does not disappear, but remains

Diego Moya (talkcontribs)

I like its new simple interaction flow :-)

It is not at all obvious that you can expand the "solved" thread to read it by clicking on the background box (there's not even feedback with the mouse cursor to show that it's clickable). Either an "expand" button or an entry in the menu should be added.

I think a good design for this would be a call-to-action button or link besides the summary; expanding the thread to see the comments after reading the thread's summary seems a primary action.

Сунприат (talkcontribs)

"It is not at all obvious that you can expand" I agree

Diego Moya (talkcontribs)

Also, the text in the Terms of use notice is wrong. It says "By clicking "Summarize", you agree to...", but the button label is "Update summary".

Is there a way to generate both labels from the same string, so that they will always be in sync even when a designer changes the copy? This is a bit that can never be wrong, as it has legal implications.

DannyH (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Сунприат: The idea is that once you select "Mark as resolved", then the topic is resolved. There isn't an extra "are you sure, click Cancel or OK" step. The prompt to add, update or skip the summary is separate -- you can choose any of them, and the topic is still resolved. But it looks like that wasn't clear for you, which is good feedback for us to know.

Also, you were selecting "Reopen topic" while you were still involved in resolving it -- that didn't occur to us as a thing someone would try. :) I'll see if we can make "reopen" inactive while the summary is being edited.

@Diego Moya: Yeah, it's not really obvious that you can click to expand. I'm glad you guys brought it up, we'll talk about what we can do. The same for Сунприат's point about the messages collapsing while you're writing the summary. I bet we can do something for that as well.

Also, Diego - thanks for catching the Terms of use inconsistency! You have sharp eyes, and I appreciate it very much. :)

EBernhardson (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Clicking in the area that says '3 comments. timestamp' doesn't do the click to expand, only clicking other parts. chrome 43.0

Mattflaschen-WMF (talkcontribs)

"2) In "New topic" no button "Skip summary", but there is in other topics"

I believe this is because there already was a summary.

"3) From the menu choose "cancel the closing thopic""

There is no "cancel the closing topic" (with either spelling) in the i18n. What localization are you using? Perhaps there is a mistranslation of 'Reopen topic'.

Сунприат (talkcontribs)

so I have no choice. if I click on the green button resume updated. create a new record without any changes as zero correction, but with a record in history. What if I do not want to change the resume and all wrote in the last post ...

Oh, there have replaced Unlock https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translations&message=MediaWiki%3AFlow-topic-action-unlock-topic%2Fru

Vriullop (talkcontribs)

I really like it. It makes more sense than lock topics, it helps browsing on pending ones, but I miss a filter in the table of contents for resolved/pending topics.

Reply to "Updated feature: Mark as resolved"
Сунприат (talkcontribs)

The way the branches logically separated text before Now it is not. Now it is a wall of text.

wiki -- flow

In these places it turns out that the user does not continue the conversation, does not respond to the last / the last few posts, he he begins a new mini talk, a new branch. The plain text of this moment of this transition does not markedly. It is difficult to understand.

Tucvbif (talkcontribs)

Your discussion is not good example for illustration of flow's indentation bug. Compare two themes: ru:Тема:Sjnbtu70fpp8c990 and ru:Тема:Sjnbzj23r6t4lrs8 This themes looks equal, but in first one, replies sequence is like this:

***
├***
│ └***
└***

and in second - like

***
├***
├***
└***

I came up with three solutions:

  • tree structure diagram. If I reply on higher level message, it creates a node on left vertical line that connects to my message. Like this:
***
├─***
│ ***
├─***
│ ***
***
***
  • seperation rule. If I reply not on the previous message, but on higer level, it will divide my one. Like this:
***
│***
│***
│───
│***
│***
***
***
  • extra indentations. Every next branching makes an indentation (reversial indentaiton system). Like this:
***
││***
││***
│***
│***
***
***
Reply to "In Flow lacking logic breaks"