The hu.wikipedia community decided to enable Flow for testing (discussion; permalink). Please
- give administrators the flow-create-board right
- if that's problematic, enable Flow just for Wikipédia:Flow/teszt (a test page)
Description
Description
Details
Details
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Declined | None | T117990 Enable StructuredDiscussions on wikis that require it | |||
| Open | None | T223892 [EPIC] Support Hungarian Wikipedia editor retention project | |||
| Declined | None | T119365 Enable Flow for testing on Hungarian Wikipedia |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Blocked on translation; especially on figuring out how to usurp the namespace name which is currently used by LiquidThreads.
Comment Actions
Change 254814 had a related patch set uploaded (by Gergő Tisza):
Hungarian localization for special messages
Comment Actions
We had the same issue for Portuguese Wikibooks. We would prefer not to usurp it, as that breaks all links (the LQT->Flow migration process does not break links); we did not usurp on Portuguese Wikibooks.
Please try to find a suitable Hungarian word (other than the one that conflicts with LQT) that conveys the concept of topic, thread, subject, etc.
Comment Actions
Breaking all links would be entirely fine. LQT was only ever enabled for testing. Per the pagelinks table there 25 links to Thread namespace (and 2 to Thread talk, whatever that is); they can be easily fixed by hand. I wold rather not choose an awkward localization just because of that.
Comment Actions
I broke out the LQT conversion to T119571: Convert LQT->Flow on Hungarian Wikipedia and freeze LQT. These are separate things.
Comment Actions
Change 255672 had a related patch set uploaded (by Gergő Tisza):
Update Hungarian namespace names
Comment Actions
Thanks for organizing this @Mattflaschen!
So, given that LQT was only used for testing and there are only a handful of links, would this be a reasonable approach?
- make a list of links pointing into the Thread/Thread_talk namespace
- merge https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/255672/, wait until it's deployed
- fix all links in the list to point to Topic instead
- merge https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/254814/, wait until it's deployed
- enable Flow, run the migration script
Comment Actions
I don't completely follow. You can use the Hungarian namespace names. I'll just cross-check them against your patches.
- make a list of links pointing into the Thread/Thread_talk namespace
- merge https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/255672/, wait until it's deployed
- fix all links in the list to point to Topic instead
The existing links should be changed to point to either Szál/Szálvita (as appropriate) or Thread/Thread talk (canonical namespaces always work), right?
- merge https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/254814/, wait until it's deployed
- enable Flow, run the migration script
I think that should work, although it would also affect any third-party Hungarian wikis using LQT (hopefully not that many?), but they can still override it back.
Comment Actions
Yes, my mistake. (Thread is less hassle I guess, none of the links are on a useful page anyway.)
I think that should work, although it would also affect any third-party Hungarian wikis using LQT (hopefully not that many?), but they can still override it back.
I doubt there are any. There is no good way to make sure but at least WikiApiary knows of none.
Comment Actions
mysql:wikiadmin@db1062 [huwiki]> select pl_namespace, pl_from_namespace, page_title from pagelinks join page on pl_from = page_id where pl_namespace in (90, 91, 92, 93) order by pl_namespace, pl_from_namespace, pl_title; +--------------+-------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | pl_namespace | pl_from_namespace | page_title | +--------------+-------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | 90 | 0 | KoЯn | | 90 | 0 | Korn | | 90 | 2 | Trafter/A_világ_legvénebb_fái | | 90 | 2 | Trafter/próbalap | | 90 | 2 | Duma-Nagy_Éva/próbalap | | 90 | 2 | Induktív_érvelés | | 90 | 2 | WBetti/próbalap | | 90 | 2 | Niir123/próbalap | | 90 | 2 | Mdcducy/SuperStereo_feat._Dé | | 90 | 2 | Bennó/Archívum_51 | | 90 | 2 | Bennó/Archívum_50 | | 90 | 2 | Pasztilla/Vitalaparchívum_11 | | 90 | 2 | Pasztilla/Vitalaparchívum_11 | | 90 | 2 | Bennó/Archívum_53 | | 90 | 2 | Bennó/Archívum_55 | | 90 | 2 | Samat/Interwikivel_rendelkező_lapok | | 90 | 2 | Tamaslaci/próbalap | | 90 | 4 | Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala/Archív_94 | | 90 | 4 | Kocsmafal_(műszaki)/Archív88 | | 90 | 4 | Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala/Archív_84 | | 90 | 4 | Járőrök_üzenőfala/Archív_9 | | 90 | 4 | Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala/Archív_96 | | 90 | 4 | Kocsmafal_(műszaki)/Archív89 | | 90 | 90 | Hölgykő_vára | | 90 | 90 | Szerkesztővita:FoBe/Teszt_(3) | | 90 | 90 | Szerkesztővita:FoBe/Teszt_(2) | | 90 | 90 | Szerkesztővita:FoBe/Archív2/Teszt | | 91 | 4 | Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala/Archív_94 | | 91 | 4 | Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala/Archív_96 | | 92 | 4 | Szerzőijog-sértés/2013.12.31. | | 92 | 90 | Wikipédia:Tudakozó/teszt/Lapvédelem_tesztelése/válasz | +--------------+-------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ 31 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Comment Actions
Apologies for the delay. I changed the links to use canonical name, so there should be no links anyore that could broken by the translation change.
I found a bunch of broken LQT pages in non-LQT namespaces (someone tried to move them, mayve): https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szerkeszt%C5%91:Tgr/LQT_anomalies
As far as I am aware, the two patches are good to go.
Comment Actions
Removed the mention of the WP:FLOW talk page. With Flow's future uncertain as it is, probably better to limit it strictly to test pages.
The task should be ready now.
Comment Actions
Hm, ext-flow-0-all is only 84% translated.
Plus the help page also needs to be translated, I forgot about that.
Comment Actions
Although most of that seems to be the API. Seems like there are only a dozen or so non-API messages.
Comment Actions
It is up to you(r community) to decide of not having extensions is acceptable or not.
Comment Actions
@Trizek-WMF I was going by mw:Structured Discussions/Request Structured Discussions on a page#2. Technical details to consider which says translating the documentation and non-API messages is a prerequisite. If that is not the case, given that we just want to test it for now, I would be happy to proceed as we are.
Comment Actions
Good point you're raising up. It should be more flexible: the community can decide not to have the interface messages and documentation translated. Some communities have already preferred not to work on that since they have a fallback language (French for Wallon wikis for instance). I'm editing the page to reflect that.
Comment Actions
Cool! In that case, can we ask for the extension to be turned on the testpage (and the LQT content migrated, presumably, although for now we wouldn't care much if it isn't, or if it can be migrated to wikitext, that's even better)? It's only for trying out, so the docs can be translated later if it seems useful.
Comment Actions
I can create a blank test page anytime. I just need to have a clear "go" from the community to do so. It can be a new page (Wikipédia:Flow/teszt), or a conversion if an old one.
It is possible to transfer LQT contents to Structured Discussions. It would require a bit of time though.
Comment Actions
@Trizek-WMF The community discussion is linked from the task description. The extension must be deployed first, though. I can do that if the maintainers have no concern about it.
As the description says, assigning flow page management to huwiki sysops would be preferable, so we don't need to poke people for every change, but failing that Wikipédia:Flow/teszt should be the testpage, yeah. Converting pages in actual use is better left to a second stage, I think.
If it's OK to not transfer LQT, we'd prefer that. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming consultation we might end up with a different system so better not to complicate things. I just had the vague impression that LQT and Flow are not supposed to be both enabled on the same wiki.
Comment Actions
Thank you for the clarification, @Tgr.
If it's OK to not transfer LQT, we'd prefer that. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming consultation we might end up with a different system so better not to complicate things. I just had the vague impression that LQT and Flow are not supposed to be both enabled on the same wiki.
The conversion from LQT to SD is not a default operation. It requires time, so it is not included in the test.
Comment Actions
Change 497243 had a related patch set uploaded (by Gergő Tisza; owner: Gergő Tisza):
[operations/mediawiki-config@master] Enable Flow for testing on huwiki
Comment Actions
Sorry for the last minute interruption! Danny has requested that we freeze any further Flow deployments pending the outcome of the Talk page consultation process.
Comment Actions
@kaldari this would be a test deployment (throwaway demo wiki pages only) with the explicit goal of supporting the consultation (giving people a chance of seeing what they are being consulted about).
Comment Actions
@Tgr your goal is good, however during the Uninstall-Flow-from-Commons incident (T186463), the Foundation determined that creating even a single Flow topic on a wiki leaves the wiki in a state where Flow can no longer be easily or safely uninstalled. The Flow extension is dangerously defective or incomplete, lacking procedures to safely clean up the logs or other content left behind if even one post is created (T188806). Due to this issue the software has been uninstalled from all wikis do not have any existing Flow content (T188812).
Danny's freeze on new deployments makes sense. The Foundation is explicitly evaluating whether to proceed with the Flow strategy, whether to begin a new project from scratch with better community input on the design, or whether to develop improvements on top of the existing Talk page system. From what I have seen, it appears consultation-staff have pretty much decided in favor of building a new system while the community has pretty much decided in favor of improving existing Talk pages. It appears that any future for Flow has pretty much been squeezed out of the debate.
Secondly, the linked consensus was very split and it's three and a half years old. That's far too stale to act on it today. If anyone still wants Flow on HuWiki they should open a fresh discussion to consider all of the developments over the last several years. In particular it should note:
- There have been improvements to the functionality and stability of Flow over the years.
- That Flow has been rejected by several major communities (English, Meta, Commons), and that the Foundation is considering changing strategy. The Foundation is considering starting a new project from scratch or improving Talk pages instead.
- That creating even one Flow test pages is not easily reversible. Once a Flow page is created, the Foundation may be unwilling or unable to remove Flow.
Comment Actions
Setting $wgFlowReadOnly would be used to disable Flow instead of uninstalling it on wikis where Flow is not wanted to be used anymore, which offers the same visible outcome to an end user. This is also documented in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes under "Uninstall Flow from Commons".
Indeed https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019 takes place currently. At this stage, statements what "the community has pretty much decided" etc seem to be personal speculation and interpretation.
Comment Actions
@Aklapper Thanks for confirming what I said. If the HuWiki discussion is revived it may be helpful. Extra thanks for reminding me about the link to configuration changes. That link should definitely be included if there are ever any more discussions activate Flow anywhere. Some people might find it hard to believe the Foundation would be so unwilling or unable to roll back deployment of the software if a trial-deployment ends badly.
Regarding my comment:
From what I have seen, it appears consultation-staff have pretty much decided in favor of building a new system
Yes, that is my interpretation of current appearances. There is limited visibility of Foundation plans, opinions, and activities... so it's definitely possible they are looking in a different direction.
Regarding my comment:
From what I have seen, it appears... the community has pretty much decided in favor of improving existing Talk pages
I perhaps made an error in phrasing that as if it were also interpretive or speculative. It is now functionally impossible for the global community to end up at a consensus for any other option. The EnWiki discussion concluded with virtually unanimous results for keeping&improving existing Talk pages, and EnWiki constitutes virtually half of our total wikiverse by almost any metric. It's theoretically possible there could be near-unanimous outpouring for another option, which would effectively be a global-no-consensus split. However even that is bordering on implausible. Past RFCs at Meta and Commons strongly indicate that many editors at other major wikis reach largely the same conclusions that EnWiki editors reach on this topic, for similar reasons.
Comment Actions
We are moving this until we get further instruction from @DannyH after the Talk Page Consultation.
Comment Actions
Due to the upcoming improvements on talk pages (see Talk pages consultation 2019), no more deployment of Structured Discussions will be performed. We are also not removing Structured Discussions from any wikis. No new features are planned for Structured Discussions at this time. Maintenance will continue for the foreseeable future.