Page MenuHomePhabricator

Update and retest the convertToText script
Closed, ResolvedPublic


Requests at for proof that it is possible to convert Flow boards back to wikitext, should the desire or necessity arise in the future.

Make sure all content (description, summary, topics, posts) is exported. It does not support full attribution, so the Flow archive needs to be kept (possibly protected) for attribution.

After updating, do another sample export.

Event Timeline

werdna set Security to None.
EBernhardson added a subscriber: EBernhardson.

We are indecisive if we are going to provide this feature to users, if we really want it we can talk about and figure best ways forward.

We decided that we will make sure all content is exported, but that this is not meant for full attribution (the Flow archive will be kept for that).

Mattflaschen-WMF renamed this task from Update and publicly demo the converttotext script to Update and retest the convertToText script.Jan 12 2016, 12:08 AM
Mattflaschen-WMF raised the priority of this task from Low to High.

Change 264249 had a related patch set uploaded (by Catrope):
Fix convertToText.php

Change 264249 had a related patch set uploaded (by Catrope):
Fix convertToText.php & let it query remote APIs

The script has been fixed. This is what it generates for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast: (please help review the output)

{{divbox|red|End of Flow trial|Consensus has been reached to end the Flow trial here. The script to export the structured Flow board to create an unstructured wikitext page is being updated and checked. This page will be switched over once that is ready. The existing Flow page will be moved to a subpage and protected, for detailed attribution purposes. Apologies that it will take longer than the 24hours stated 2 years ago. -- [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] <p>

Progress on conversion back to a Talk page is tracked in Phabricator {{Phab|T122961}}, which is dependent on {{Phab|T96301}} and {{Phab|T90075}}}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Tabbed header}}
[[Category:WikiProject Breakfast|header]]
[Note: Removed <nowiki>{{WikiProject History|class=project}}</nowiki> until [[phab:T90461]] is resolved.]
* See [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast/Archive 1|/Archive 1]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast/Archive 2|/Archive 2]] for older discussion.

{{Archive top|result=[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg]] [[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]] ([[User talk:Xaosflux|talk]]) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)|status=resolved}}

==Welcome to Flow==
Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. '''Please direct all feedback on the software to [[WT:Flow]], to avoid distractions here. Thanks!'''

Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]:  Cool! [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting this...weird premonition that if we go ahead with this design, we'll probably need to rework the wikiproject headers ;p. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: I get this weird premonition that this is one of the reasons why you should not go ahead with this design. [[User:Kephir|Kephir]] ([[User talk:Kephir|talk]]) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Kephir|Kephir]]: I think that this is a vast improvement over the normal Talk Pages. Discussions are far easier to navigate and contribute to, which is absolutely worth a bit of a rework for talk page headers. Besides, it's still a Beta. [[User:Nicereddy|Nicereddy]] ([[User talk:Nicereddy|talk]]) 02:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Kephir|Kephir]]: The design can always be improved. :-)
:{{#switch:{{#expr:{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 5}}|0=[[File:Breakfast!.jpg|Breakfast!]]|#default=}} [[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: Is there any particular reason why it isn't set to use the full width of the page? [[User:Resolute|Resolute]] ([[User talk:Resolute|talk]]) 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I will wait and see. By the way, I wrote [[Israeli breakfast]] when this project began. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[[File:Date tangling.png]]
Dates appear tangled up in the lower right hand corner for me. Is there any way to untangle them? By the way, I had to post this using Opera, because IE would not allow the "reply" button to work. [[User:Pocket calculator operator|Pocket calculator operator]] ([[User talk:Pocket calculator operator|talk]]) 09:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Pocket calculator operator|Pocket calculator operator]]: Which versions of IE and Opera are you using, and on which operating system?  We have a few patches to help out IE8 already in the works, but I havn't seen your overlapping date issue yet. [[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:EBernhardson (WMF)|talk]]) 17:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]]:  The date for each message is on the upper right of the message, but what I see is Tue 04 Feb 2014 04:3overlapping figures - identical in the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]], [[User:EBernhardson]]: It was Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18702. Opera was only used to upload the image and post this message, since the reply button was unresponsive in IE. FWIW, the dates are not tangled for me in Opera. However, just now, as I am typing this, Opera is slow and not very responsive, so the Opera version is 19.0.1326.56 - Restart Opera to update to version 19.0.1326.59 [[User:Pocket calculator operator|Pocket calculator operator]] ([[User talk:Pocket calculator operator|talk]]) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:...also, the file usage section on the image above shows no pages using the image, despite its use above. I am going to unwatch this page now. Good luck in your endeavors. [[User:Pocket calculator operator|Pocket calculator operator]] ([[User talk:Pocket calculator operator|talk]]) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Far too little text on the page and too much white space. The margins are also far too big so the lines are a lot shorter than on a normal talk page. It makes it very hard for me to read. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: Agreed, the spacing needs major adjustment. Way too much wasted area. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:The whitespace is a feature, see [[Wikipedia:Flow/Design FAQ#Why is there so much whitespace/padding?]] [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]:  It's a bug, not a feature. Discussions involving many users trying to reach a consensus (not simply stating their views) are impossible using this much whitespace. [[User:Ypnypn|Ypnypn]] ([[User talk:Ypnypn|talk]]) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:I agree that it's far too much whitespace, but when I read a ''FAQ''  saying that lots of whitespace is good for me, it looks like it was meant to be a feature. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 14:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: I guess it was meant to be a feature, but turned out otherwise. :( [[User:Ypnypn|Ypnypn]] ([[User talk:Ypnypn|talk]]) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is confusing. Could we have background shading or lines so I know to whom I am replying? Reddit, for example, typically follows a similar minimalist design.

{{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}<nowiki> ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 13:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]]: that's a good idea; we have them for comments at ''this'' level (replies to replies) but not for replies to individual posts. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 16:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I can't rev/del, delete, etc. Can't see the page history or protect the page. Looks like I can move it but I'd rather not try. All this seems confusing. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: you should be able to revdel/delete/so on; it's triggered on individual threads or posts, though, via the buttons to the right of the post (you have to mouse over them before they show up). I find this very confusing myself, and a fix is in the works; they'll be in a little dropdown, the same as the delete options for topics. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 16:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]:  Then you had better tell people at ANI.  How about the page history? [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 16:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: that should be accessible through the 'history' tab as always; is it not for you? For what it's worth, the history as it currently stands doesn't include all the actions; we're working on that as we speak. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: The history is very scant, I also cannot click on an edit to see the diff, only be brought to the topic. If this is a bug will it be fixed, if this is by design, is that wise? People are very very used to being able to produce diffs from talk pages, and then link them in discussions. I know the permalink works in a similar way, but through the edit history, would in my mind be better. [[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]] ([[User talk:Liamdavies|talk]]) 17:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]]: both of those are bugs, yep, and both in the process of being fixed (the first one is actually in our pile-o'-work for the next two week sprint). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: Thanks for the quick response. Further to my original query, the user contribution history link/diff works quite well. But there are aspects of the layout I find confusing or unappealing. The info isn't provided in an instantly recognisable way, the name is above the post but the time below, without a clear line or demarcation it it appears as if the time of the previous post is far more linked to the name of the poster. (I hope that makes sense, in the posts above the time of my post seems to be for your post)
:I also think there is far too much white space, a blank canvas is good, but why at 1366x768 is about a third of my screen on the right hand side completely blank? Why is there so much space between the post and the time stamp? The tooltips that hover the the right seem to far down, they should be aligned with the name on the top line, and the hover text doesn't show for the flag; to be honest I don't even know why they and the (talk | contribs) text aren't always visible right next to the posters name.
:Although this sounds like a whinge, it isn't, it is honest good faith feedback, on the whole I like the idea, and the implementation seems ok for a beta, but I think the layout needs a lot of work and the minimalist look is too much, it needs more.
:One last thing, is there a way to post pictures or embed wikitext? If not this is needed, talk pages can be used to float design ideas, and place images queues, and removing this function seems like a step backwards. [[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]] ([[User talk:Liamdavies|talk]]) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]]: So, I don't interpret it as a whinge; I have issues with the layout too :p.
:In order:
:#What do you mean by "user contribution history link/diff"? The link to [[Special:Contributions]]? We've got some fixes in the works for that - it's not great, and doesn't tell you what you need to know.
:#Too much whitespace indeed; we're going to expand the width of the page, for sure, and probably talk about some kind of preference-linked "wide view" that just auto-expands it as much as is needed. We have a meeting this coming Monday to work it out.
:#You can embed both images and wikitext, the same as you would in any other page. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: Yes, the link(s) from Special:Contributions, ie:<br />
:04:56, 7 February 2014 (topic) . . (+1,359)‎ . . Okeyes (WMF) (talk | contribs) added a comment.
:It works quite well and shows the info needed (I would still like a diff, but hey, it works). Thanks for the prompt reply and good luck with the development. (you need to get the history section working so I can use the "thank" link next to edits/contributions) [[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]] ([[User talk:Liamdavies|talk]]) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]]: gotcha; yeah, it'll be changed to something like "[timestamp] [user] added a comment to [the topic title]", so hopefully it'll be more useful. And yeah, we're building 'thanks' in directly :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Having my user name appear at the end of each section is confusing, when I haven't yet commented on the page.  Also, the "Article collaboration" topic appears to be embedded in the middle of the "Welcome to Flow" topic, and the latter topic resumes after the end of the former one. [[User:R&#39;n&#39;B|R&#39;n&#39;B]] ([[User talk:R&#39;n&#39;B|talk]]) 15:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]]: the article collaboration topic is just an image ''of'' the article collaboration topic that was inserted as a screenshot of a bug. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just seen someone start a new topic, and unlike normal talk pages it's at the top of the page. I wouldn't look for it there. I'm getting concerned that this experiment may impede the work of the project and may confuse the new user who posted the new topic. And of course I can't edit the page to move it to the bottom. I presume there will be some way of adding headers? [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: Yep; is there no header at the top of the talk page for you? (With the Wikiproject box, etc, etc). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]:  No page header, just Welcome to Wikiproject Breakfast. And can I move a post? Will I be able to strikethrough? Ah, wrong place for all this anyway. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: oh, do you mean at the start of each ''thread''? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]]: 
:I see my problem. Silly me, I thought I was on the talk page, but I seem to be only in a section of the talk page. Or I was. Now I'm on the talk page which has no toc. Confusing. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 18:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: Yeah, it really needs a notice saying that (and a link back to the talk page proper) :/. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, someone can do the equivalent of rev/del as usernamesuppressed suppressed a comment. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

'''Please please test Flow at [[Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page]], not here!''' 

Give feedback on Flow either there, or ideally at [[WT:Flow]] where more people are watchlisting.  Thank you! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]: These posts of yours are exceedingly silly. [[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 00:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

==Article collaboration==
Hi. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Article collaboration]] seems a bit dead, but it might be a nice idea to collaboratively get the [[breakfast]] article to featured article status. WikiProject Breakfast currently only has one featured article ([[maple syrup]]). [[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]]: It might be nice, but sadly the article has been tagged for improvement, which makes some of us disinclined to edit it. I feel excessive tagging is one of the chief reasons we have editor retention problems, so I don't like to risk encouraging anyone to think they're doing something useful by adding unsightly tags. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

==New Member & Article Collaboration==

My name is Carmen and I am currently enrolled in a class at American University that specifically focuses on Wikipedia practices. My current assignment is to pick a WikiProject to participate in and I am very interested in WikiProject: Breakfast. I would love to participate here and help with the expansion of this project in any way that is needed. I have checked the to-do- list and I see there is work to be done and many more things to add. I currently live in the DC area and would love to be able to contribute about Brunch in DC as well as any other work that is needed to help improve article status. I am really new to Wikipedia, willing to learn, so any advice or recommendations are greatly appreciated. 

Thank you. [[User:Cm8587a|Cm8587a]] ([[User talk:Cm8587a|talk]]) 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you {{u|Cm8587a}} for your interest in breakfast. Breakfast is happening here, but you have also wandered into a test space for a new communication system which is not in place elsewhere on Wikipedia. I thought you should be aware.

It would be useful if you contributed to actual Wikipedia articles as part of your time here. If you want to make articles about DC, first start by collecting [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to cite when you add content. All statements on Wikipedia are supposed to be backed by sources, so getting sources is the place to start. Thanks for joining us for breakfast. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Thanks so much for helping out here, Bluerasberry. I tried to participate when this was first posted, but at the time I had no Reply button. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 08:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 [[User:Rcsprinter123|Rcsprinter123]] ([[User talk:Rcsprinter123|talk]]) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

==Flow & pings==
{{u|Dougweller}} I got a wikinotice saying you mentioned me, but the link just goes to "View board". No way to see the particular post or diff that mentioned me. , and since my name shows up just below EVERY post to let me reply, there is no good way to search for my name! [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Go comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Flow]]. My response was about the whitespace. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]: I give up on trying to post comments at [[ Wikipedia talk:Flow]] - it is way too busy and appears to be only for those who have the time to follow every development. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]:  I sympathize. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 08:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry it took so long to answer this; I didn't realize this conversation was still going unanswered. We're right in the middle of making some big changes to Flow notifications, which are aimed at making it easier to track the conversations you're involved in, and filter out the ones that you don't care about. That's started to roll out on, and the changes will show up here a week behind. 

We're going to make a change to the way that the ping feature works, to integrate it with the new notifications system. That's maybe a month out, if all goes well -- so hopefully that will solve this problem. Thanks for reporting this -- let me know what other kinds of ideas you have, or problems that you see. [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

==Article assessment==
[[Brown Bobby]] is rated top-importance, but it's just one company's oddly shaped doughnut.  [[Doughnut]], on the other hand, is only rated as mid-importance.  Does this seem right to you all? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]:  I agree and asked the editor who rated it to comment here. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: It appears I was the guilty party who tagged this article as important. As I explained on my [[User_talk:Ottawahitech#Brown_Bobby|talk page]] this was a mistake. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 08:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
:I'm thinking that [[Doughnut]] might be better ranked as high-importance than as mid; "coffee and a doughnut" is a classic commuter breakfast.  What do other people think? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
::Since nobody disagreed with me during the last month, I've changed [[Doughnut]] to "high" importance. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: I support your reclassification of the doughnut. There are not established guidelines, but doughnuts get a lot of media attention so they seem important on that basis. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

==Is anyone in this project involved in article assessment?==
In light of the discussion thread '''Article assessment''' (which I don't know how to link here), I was wondering if anyone is actively assessing articles in this wiki-project? Thanks, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 08:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

==Added gallery to project page==
Below the members sign up section I posted a gallery of some pictures from Commons. I used the new gallery functions which just became available a few months ago, so the images are packed and I tagged the pictures with country names to emphasize the international nature of this project. I think this gallery is not intrusive in the place where I put it plus I hope that people enjoy it here and become interested in breakfast. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 17:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: I was looking for the gallery but cannot see it at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Members]] - is this the right link? All I see there are images that, I believe,  
:[[User:Northamerica1000]] posted last year. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: It is not in this section but below it. There are about ten pictures of breakfasts.
:The link is the main page associated with this talk page. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The last line I see on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Members]], just before the categories is [[user: Ksb93|member #44]]. I don’t see a gallery? On the plus side my notification lead me directly to your post, YEY! [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: [ Here is a screenshot of the entire page]! Here you can see the table of contents, the whitespace to the left of the table of contents, and the gallery below the signatures.
:This link expires in about a month. If need be I can upload a permanent picture.
:How are you viewing this page? Is your view really so radically different that so much is excluded? You are doing very strange and personalized things with your settings, right? [[User:Sj|Sj]] ([[User talk:Sj|talk]]) 06:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow -- looks like I am missing a lot! Thanks for the screenshot. And no I am not doing anything strange, at least not on purpose :-) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Vertical whitespace makes it hard to figure out attribution.  The "Sj" above this textarea looks to me like it is attached to the text above, requires a doubletake to realize it's my own sig. 

The "..." is hard to understand as a navigation element.

The bottom of the textarea quivers for me on MacOS/Chrome: it's not fixed.  

The subtext "By clicking "Reply..." is a fine fontsize, but a) doesn't need the extra word 'irrevocably' and b) could be cleaner if aligned with the left edge of the whitespace above it, not the left edge of the [blue] highlighted margin.

I like the color scheme used for text, margin, and buttons. [[User:Sj|Sj]] ([[User talk:Sj|talk]]) 06:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the ... being non-intuitive and have no comment on the rest. I do not have stylistic expectations for usability except that eventually this go through focus group testing before rolling it out. I think the opinions of complete non-Wikipedians should be influential in the final accepted design. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

==Yellow boxes not floating and this is a problem==
The yellow boxes on this page, starting with the one called "About the project", are not floating. This is a problem for my screensize because it means that there is empty space until after the table of contents, at which point the "About the project" section begins.

If these floated then they would automatically resize to match the user's screen. Right now I do not think they look good, but they would like nice if they floated.

I do not know how to fix this but if it is a standing problem for others for a long time, I would propose to change this presentation somehow. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]:  You must get a different view than I do. I only see one yellow box on this page and it is called " Project" not "About the project". I also don't see a table of contents. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 23:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: [[File:WikiProject Breakfast banner problem.png|thumb|an illustrative screenshot used to discuss a problem]]There is a table of contents and the problem banner in this image. Do you not see these things? [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: The only place where I see ''''File:WikiProject Breakfast banner problem.png''' is in your reply. On a positive note -- I did get a notification about your reply :-) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: It looks like the width of the section headers is the problem, on any screeen < 1200px the 75% width requirement specified in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Breakfast/section_header|the section header]] means it wont fit next to the sidebar. I'm not particularly familiar with styling tables, a temporary fix might be to reduce the width 60% or some such. [[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:EBernhardson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:EBernhardson (WMF)|EBernhardson (WMF)]]: Very cool yes that is a reasonable solution. Thanks for suggesting that - I also am not familiar with styling tables but it really is not so hard to make these kinds of changes. Your looking first was an encouragement to me, and yes, what you suggested is best. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why title headings would not display for you. Obviously they are in the source code for everyone.

Can someone else comment on whether they at least see the title heading and table of contents? [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: I think the answer to both is still "no", but see this screenshot for my current view (the yellow [brown?] box still just says "Project"):
: [[User:Memetics|Memetics]] ([[User talk:Memetics|talk]]) 16:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Memetics|Memetics]]: I am talking about the main page for the project, not the talk page as is shown in your screenshot. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 17:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Ah; sorry!  I was focused on testing the new discussion functionality, so I was looking at the Talk page.  Yes: I do see both elements on the main project page.  -m [[User:Memetics|Memetics]] ([[User talk:Memetics|talk]]) 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

==Update on Flow trial: what's new, what's next==
Greetings, WikiProject Breakfast!

Now that you've had a chance to use Flow in your discussion space, we wanted to check in and see how you feel about the current set of features.
; Recap of work to date
As a quick recap, in the past 4 weeks, we've updated the visual design and behavior of some of our features per your and other users' feedback:

* permanent reply and edit buttons instead of hover buttons
* moderation actions and permalinks moved into a menu instead of appearing on hover
* darker body text
* tighter spacing between posts and topics
* third level of indentation for posts (code currently live on and set to kick in here later this week)
* found and fixed many bugs

Check out the screenshots of [[:File:Flow first iteration design.png|the first iteration]] and the [[:File:Flow second iteration design.png|second iteration]] of the visual design/UI of Flow, to see our progress.
; What's next
We're still just getting started with the visual design and features of Flow. We're currently working on an overhaul of our frontend code and design, which will make it look better across multiple screens (large and small) and more browsers. You can see the early stages of this work in this prototype:, including a new navigational feature to the right of discussions. In addition, we'd like to do the following in the next month or so:

* add in-board search feature (you can see it in the prototype above)
* add a feature to summarize and close topics
* add the "thanks" feature for posts
* continue improving moderation, history, and watchlist items

; Do you still want to help?
* If you'd like to keep using Flow here, let us know what you'd like us to prioritize next that would make it better for you! We're interested in hearing what new features you'd like to see, as well changes to the existing features and design.
If you'd like to end the trial and return to using a talk page here, just let us know, and we can return your Flow posts to wikitext.
Whatever you choose, thanks for trying out the software and helping us improve it! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that you ask, pretty pretty please, move the Reply button out of the way from the left side of the screen to the right side; this is top priority for me. 

Having (Reply) the button interleaved (Reply) with the (Reply) conversation is (Reply) totally distracting. Interaction elements (Reply) shouldn't get in (Reply) the way of (Reply) the main task (Reply) which is (Reply) reading content .(Reply)

[ This design] is a step in the wrong direction in that regard, but it would be good if the [Reply, Posted X minutes ago, Updated Y minutes ago] bar of controls would be right-aligned instead of left-aligned. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego Moya]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 09:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that one of the goals was to have threads with new comments move to the top  - is this in the plans?
This is important for those who do not want to participe in stale conversations. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: Yes. Starting next Monday, they're working on [ Sort by activity], and the framework for other (future) "topic sorting" options. (Ignore the visual-design mockup and wording in that card, it's quite old now). Then once content-searching has been integrated ([ ongoing]), they'll be able to push forward with more complex types of Filtering and Sorting, such as those suggested at [[User:Hhhippo/Flow]]. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]]: I wanted to send you a thanks notification, but I guess this is also onl in the plans? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 04:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: Yeah, "thanks" is coming. [[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 05:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I still cannot start a new topic - my '''+ Start a new topic''' is not clickable.

I would like to post this:
Price of breakfast foods going up?

According to :
<blockquote>The price of lean pork in the futures market is at record levels and is up 52 percent since the start of the year</blockquote> (bacon?)
<blockquote>Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year </blockquote> [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

History: is this page being rewritten from scratch, or merged with the standard history view (and both updated)?  The current history-view options don't seem too easy to use: no multiedit diffs, lots of vert whitespace, hard to see how to page through large numbers of diffs.  The view displaying a single diff seems nice; I haven't tried it for anything significant. [[User:Sj|Sj]] ([[User talk:Sj|talk]]) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree the history function is not usable. Lots of things here are problematic but we are using the tools as best we can. FLOW is not anywhere close to being functional but lots of things will be improved as it is developed. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on the fact that not a single contributor to this page has said "heck, yes, let's keep doing this!" and instead all of the comments have been about what problems users are encountering, I would suggest that the answer to the question "do you still want to help" is 
"not really".  Given that a regular contributor to this page has stated that he is not able to create a new topic, and his new page-relevant topic is now lost in the middle of this thread - it seems clear that the Flow experiment is now interfering with the appropriate function of this page.  It's time to pull the plug here, so that the Wikiproject members can actually use this page for its intended purpose. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Risker|Risker]]: "Start new topic" is working for me and for Bluerasberry.  Perhaps it was just a transient glitch in his browser.
:[[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity]]:  Why is the text in the reply box so much lighter than the text that is posted?  I wouldn't mind a dark gray, but this is too light, and they probably ought to match (or at least not contrast so dramatically).  Medium gray text makes me feel like this website is only intended for people who have good vision. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: It doesn't matter whether it was a "transient glitch" or one that's browser-dependent or anything else:  The whole purpose of having these LIVE pages on trial is to identify issues and act on them.  Six days later, nobody from the FLOW project has even bothered to inquire of {{ping|User:Ottawahitech}} about his problem, whether it recurred for him, what OS/browser he was using, etc. If the Flow folks aren't even going to bother reviewing what is going on here, or responses to the thread that they started, then it tells me that it's time to end the experiment.  This page is using Flow for their learning and benefit, not for the good of Wikiproject Breakfast. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[[User:Risker|Risker]]: I'd responded to Ottawahitech's "Start new topic" bug at [[User_talk:Ottawahitech#Flow_feedback|their talkpage]] , but it's currently unreproducible. (If anyone encounters it, please tell me details!)  Regarding the continuation of this page as a trial location: the quiet nature of the project, and the participants willingness to cope with potential bugs whilst giving feedback, is part of the reason their offer to volunteer was so gratefully accepted.

[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: The insufficiently-dark grey text in text-area box will be fixed soon - the frontend dev has been working on a complete overhaul, hence the existing design hasn't had as much attention or as many tweaks as we might have expected. It means the newer design will be here faster, but that we need to endure known small design flaws like this for a few more weeks.

[[User:Sj|Sj]] and [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Yup, the History page is getting an overhaul, once the RC/Watchlist/Contribs overhaul is complete - that aspect is taking longer than expected, because they're encountering and fixing some technical debt as they go. It should make future work on it all somewhat easier, but is making current work more complex. The History page should end up looking much like current history pages do - the [ dev notes are here] for the next iteration. They're also moving towards a more revdel-based moderation architecture, so that will also need to be taken into account.

HTH. As always, the more feedback the better. :) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 21:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

==Price of breakfast foods going up?==
This is for {{u|Ottawahitech}}

I still cannot start a new topic - my + Start a new topic is not clickable.

I would like to post this: Price of breakfast foods going up?

According to :

The price of lean pork in the futures market is at record levels and is up 52 percent since the start of the year



Coffee futures have surged 57 percent this year 

My add topic seems to work. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 13:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I'm talking over at [[WT:FOOD]] about re-writing the articles related to candy.  This is resulting in [[Confectionery]] getting an accurate scope:  bakers' confections (including many breakfast-oriented pastries and baked goods) plus sugar confections (candy/sweets) instead of just the sugar ones.

If you'd like to help with the breakfast aspects of [[Confectionery]], then please feel free to join in.  If there's a list of pastries or something, then it would be nice to have that linked. 

Also, does anyone have a decent source about people eating candy for breakfast? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: I can't find a topic at [[wt:food]] called confectionary. Did you mean[[Wikipedia_talk:FOOD#Notability of food: are recipes enough?| this?]] [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 12:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: It's been archived, but it's now [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Archive_28#Sweets.2C_candies.2C_and_stuff_like_that|here]].  I'm looking forward to Flow's no-archive-needed system. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: OH YES - no archive needed! [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I found this  [[List of pastries]] [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 12:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: There also [[Mekitsa]] which I found in [[List of breakfast foods]] which is not mentioned in [[ List of pastries]] even though it is described as a pastry.
::History: when the breakfast wikiproject was started we had a [[:category: Breakfast foods]], but it was deleted shortly after its creation through the [[wp:CfD]] process which I personally believe is a flawed process that damages efforts of editors to organize content... [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks.  Mekitsa sounds a bit like [[sopapilla]]s, which also aren't on the list.  I wonder if they're considered more "bread" than "pastry"?  (I'm not sure what the difference is; fundamentally, all pastries are breads.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: Tell you the truth I never realized some people refer to pastries as confectionary (which by the way [ this source] confirms. When I googled confectionary I saw the definition runs the full gamut from candies alone to including pastries and some even included ice cream, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]]: I haven't seen any good sources that claim it's candy alone; confectionery is split into sugar confectionery (candy) and baker's confectionery (pastry and other sweet baked goods).  I'm not sure which category ice cream is supposed to be included in, but I've also seen several sources that say it's a confection. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I will come up with something. My employer Consumer Reports has had engineers doing a lot of breakfast research for the past few months. [ Some research] is in the food guides and I think in the news now CR is protesting the food coloring in waffle syrup. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to start a new topic , but can't -- what I wanted to ask is why there have been no updates posted here from the developers in over a month. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, What OS/browser are you using? [[User:Sj|Sj]] ([[User talk:Sj|talk]]) 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Sj|Sj]]: See 2nd part of [[User talk:Ottawahitech#Flow feedback]]. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 20:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've got a source for eating candy for breakfast... and it says that [[sugar cereal]] is candy!  The first was something like [[Sugar Crisp]] by Quaker Oats, and it was specifically made as candy-coated breakfast cereal puff, as a one-time treat for fairgoers for the 1904 World Fair.[ [source]]  The first commercial sugar cereal was put out in 1939, and the only serious difference between this presweetened "cereal" and the World Fair "candy" was the marketing.

Do you think that it would be weird to include this in [[Candy]], as part of the information about meal replacements? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No it is not weird and yes share it, that is awesome! Do you have access to deeper sources? How did you get the name Sugar Crisp, when that is not in the original source? The section heading on 285 says, "Candy for Breakfast". I wonder if contemporary marketing really did call it a "candy-coated cereal puff". [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: There's a 1951 ad for Post's Sugar Crisp reproduced in plate 15, which isn't in the Google Books version.  It says that their cereal can be eaten as breakfast, snack, or candy.  (All the color plates appear to be "page 183" according to Google.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: Can you upload a copy of that advertisement? It would make a strong case for using the term "candy". [[Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/12#Advertisement_from_1938|I expect the ad would be in the public domain]]. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 15:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: You can see the ad [ here].  Here's [ a similar one].  This [ old TV ad] uses the same slogan. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: Is it your belief that this is not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If I uploaded this for you, would you use it? [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Perhaps I cannot do that. It looks like Saturday Evening Post has its copyright renewed from April 1950 on. The uploader says this is 1950, but someone else says this is from November 1960. Not sure... [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: My search for "Sugar Crisp" (quoted) at Commons produced zero hits.  I'd use it.  It should also be placed at [[Sugar Bear]], which is image-free. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Hmmm - not sure about the Saturday evening post ad, the other ad is from an unnamed publication, but that video seems fair game for Wikimedia Commons. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: Duke University is managing that Sugar Bear video. I have an email pending to their librarian about copyright. If it is really clear, I should upload it after managing this correspondence. This should not take more than a week. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 17:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: I wanted [ that TV ad on] but it seems that it is has the default (complete) copyright on it and will not be free for a long time. [ Duke Library] holds the collection but they are not copyright holders. I suppose all these ads could be cited but unfortunately, this video seems copyrighted, the Saturday Evening Post ad is copyrighted, and the "1951 Post Sugar Crisp Cereal Ad" is from an unspecified magazine so I cannot check the copyright. It seems that I can take no further action to get any of these ads on Commons. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: It's possible that the ad could be justified as Fair Use (to talk about marketing/the fact that candy wasn't a dirty word back then), but I think we'd want to get other opinions on it.
::I suppose we could figure out how to contact the company to ask them what they copyright status was.  In theory, I think that they, rather than the magazine, hold the copyright for the ads (they ran this one in multiple magazines).  It depends a little on the advertising contract terms, but the usual thing to do (these days, anyway) is to license your ad to the publication, and hold the copyright yourself. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: I am not prepared to make a fair use argument, and anyway I try not to put much effort into things that cannot be used in other languages.
::There is no existing infrastructure for making routine requests to external organizations for their content. I am not prepared to ask either Post Foods or any magazine for this content.
::I am not sure of consensus on Commons for old ads. If you or anyone else is serious about pursuing this as an option then I would continue the conversation as we could go forward, but my initial thought is that all easy routes seem closed and that I myself am unwilling to lead an effort to do anything beyond following the easy routes. I think fair use would be the easiest route of remaining options, but I really prefer not to make fair use arguments. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Now's not the time to make any fair-use claims anyway; it ought to be done within minutes of uploading the image. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::Update on this:  I e-mailed Post about the copyright status on their old advertisements back in July, and despite being (I thought, anyway) pretty clear about my question, I recently received a boilerplate message asking me for things like the name of the publication, the audience, the author, and so forth that I wanted to use the image on.  
::I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth replying with "The name of the publication is Wikipedia, and since you've got an internet connection, then YOU are the audience", since they obviously didn't understand what I wrote the first time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
::I become less tempted to try this again after having tried this more than a hundred times without success, and without hearing of anyone else having success in these contexts.
::If I were to pursue this, I might consider checking whether they renewed their copyright. See [[Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisements]] for a striking assessment which seems to suggest that there is a lot of opportunity to share content in Commons. We probably have a friend in copyright expert Cory Doctorow who has [ commented on this in the past], and who has supported the active LiveJournal group [ Vintage Ads]. I think it might be more rewarding to write to the Vintage Ads group than to Post. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

==July 10 Flow Update==
Please see News and Notes, at [[Wikipedia talk:Flow#July 10 Flow Update]], for the major update today. Feedback there is appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

==Do we want to go back to normal talk page format?==
I think it would be a good idea, especially after seeing that topics can't actually be deleted (see below). [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 13:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:I've just been told about this, and I'm not sure what you meant about topics not being able to be deleted, but I'm sure that's something that can be fixed eventually (if it does in fact need to be fixed)... and after all the hard work I have had so easily deleted in Wikipedia, lack of deletions in general sound to me like a really GOOD thing right about now. :) Not arguing... just sharing an alternative point of view.
:Now, I get the impression that we don't have to sign our replies in here, but I'm going to try it anyway... and at least see what happens. Gotta learn somehow.
:<nowiki>~~~~  <-- (Edit) Ah, so that's what it did. Surrounded it in </nowiki>'''nowiki''' tags instead of expanding it to a signature.  Now I wonder what would happen if I removed those '''nowiki''' tags.  Okay.... gotta try it and find out. Will sign again here. --> <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> [[User:DonaldKronos|DonaldKronos]] ([[User talk:DonaldKronos|talk]]) 07:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:I have not visited here in a long while (don't know how to find my last contribution to this wiki-test). Just happened to follow a link from the newly created [[Portal:Liquor|Portal:Liquor.]] I find the comment about deletions at wikipedia by 
:= User:DonaldKronos intriguing. = [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The original thought was that this WikiProject's members seem to be experienced Wikipedians, and can tolerate any kind of problem, and actually recognize when something is broken as compared to when something does not work just because of problems operating the site.

I like the idea of talk page reform. The experiment here has surfaced a lot of problems with [[WP:FLOW]] (the experimental talk page format used here) which I would not have understood otherwise.

If new Wikipedians were coming here and having problems, I would be sympathetic, but I would like FLOW to be tested and I cannot think of a better place to do it than here.

Do you object to FLOW being tested? Do you object to it being tested here? Can you suggest any better place to test it? I am still happy to be a FLOW volunteer tester here on this page, even though I acknowledge that it is not ready to be introduced to the general Wikipedia population. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 13:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:New Wikipedians ''are'' having problems with it though, see e.g. [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg]] [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::I fail to recognize what happened here. Does this mean that posts in FLOW, to be deleted, go through the page deletion process in Wikipedia?
::Also, did this happen in WikiProject Breakfast? Is there any way to see how that post is tied to this forum?
::I cannot see who made that post. Its history on the deletion page [ leads back to WikiProject Breakfast]. Ah, is that the best way to see the forum of origin for the post?
::I agree that it is all confusing but I am not convinced that new users are bothered. Even the most popular WikiProjects are low-traffic with new users, and this is not a popular WikiProject. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::Um, it happened here, and it was a new user who was bothered by it, so... Yes, seeing the history and what happened where is difficult, as is deleting things on Flow pages (or complete Flow pages). 
::Testing can be done at [[Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page]] (or at mediawiki). The tests hare don't help this project and aren't necessary (yet) for the Flow project, which has plenty of issues to solve before any further rollout to projects, user talk, article talk, ... is realistic. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::That is a great response which I feel merits an answer from the developers. It does seem that in many ways Flow is not usable, despite it being usable in some contexts. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks. To give you an idea of the problems; just check "contributions" (top right of the screen, i.e. your own contributions). Do you see the edits you made in this topic? I don't see the ones I made, so I guess it will be the same for you. 
::This and many similar problems with history, contributions, and watchlist (and so on) have been noted on the Flow feedback pages since (at least) February. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::Hmm... that is really strange, and a great reason to prevent rolling this out where new Wikipedians are, but not so horrible that I would keep it away from controlled trials with experienced Wikipedians if that were necessary for development.
::It is working well enough for this conversation. I just would not want any new user to have this experience. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::I was under the impression (perhaps wrong, of course) that Flow contributions weren't supposed to be tracked as part of your local contributions, but via a separate project.  This seems like a very sensible system for software that does cross-project discussions.  Otherwise, you'd be left saying, "Where'd that post get counted?  The discussion was linked to 40 wikis, so it could be any of them.  Hmm, maybe I should check Meta first...." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:::It doesn't make sense that a marginal case (cross-project discussion) would force us to change the behavior of the default, more general case, sweeping away some useful features with it.
:::The Contributions and Watchlist have a very clear model - show me in one place all the changes that me and others have made to the topics I care about. Breaking that model and forcing us to check two different streams would be a huge drawback.
:::The case of cross-project discussion could be solved without changing the current behavior in at least two ways:
:::* Keep a separate track only for conversations that are cross-project, and show in the default Contributions and Watchlist changes for those conversations that belong to a single project; or,
:::* Assign a primary project for all cross-project discussions, so that they are counted only for it. Discussions cross-posted to several projects could be shown in different ways. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego Moya]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Our contributions do appear in the standard locations (e.g. [ my contribs to the WT namespace] include this topic). The discussion above/below about that, was about a bug that has since been resolved. It didn't have anything to do with cross-page/wiki content. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::@Quiddity (WMF)  I checked the link you provided and I see that there is a [Hide] button on some of your contributions. Can you please explain (or provide a link to documentation that explains) this. Thank in advance, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Basic docs are at [[mw:Flow/Administration#Hide]]. It is like "undo" (anyone can use it), but it leaves a small placeholder so that other people can see that an action occurred. (without us having to scrutinize every item in the history, or watch every change since page-creation, as we would with a wikitext talkpage). See [[mw:Topic:Strhmsk4ws9mug84|this example]] where I've hidden the second of three posts (that post can be seen via the history page. It isn't linked directly from the placeholder to avoid drawing direct attention to it.). In addition to the [Hide] link, admins get [delete] and oversighters get [suppress] links in the history page. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 01:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I've posted about this elsewhere... the "hide" mechanism sucks.
:::# It makes it impossible for me to delete my own misplaced or otherwise screwed up posts. (Which happened up above.)
:::# A single "hidden" placeholder is a gigantic neon "click me" sign drawing absurd levels of attention to something that is supposedly hidden. (What percentage of people do you think clicked on my screwed up ''undeletable'' post above?)
:::# If someone(s) spams large numbers of comments, hiding them doesn't work. The message board is still crudded up with an unlimited spam of placeholders. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::Another nice example of throwing away the standard method for the exception (99% of the talk pages will never be cross-wiki). And, of course, that exception doesn't work yet anyway. Plus, which "separate project"? Perhaps something that should be discussed with the different communities before it gets rolled out and ''can't'' be rolled back "because that would cause too many problems, but we won't do it again, promised, this time for real". We are already stuck with the Topic namespace (where and when has that been announced), which is a huge black hole at the moment. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::I've filed the contributions issue as [[bugzilla:70662]]. (The contributions ''are'' showing up in the correct sub-section if I use the drop-down to select a namespace, but for some contributions, for some editors, they're not showing up in the "All" section.)
::{{reply to|Dougweller}} Admins can delete topics, but only via the link in the action-menu (but the flow team plans to add [undo/delete] links into the history page.) .   
::Re: the issue that Eddymason experienced, sadly I didn't see the deletion discussion because of the [ broken manual ping], though I did talk with him [[User_talk:Quiddity_(WMF)#Maintenance_script|on my talkpage]] earlier about it, and I believed him to be fine with it. - Deleting the topic would not actually fix the issue he is experiencing, but I shall re-enquire of the dev when those confusing page-initialization edits (not actual content edits) are going to disappear from our contributions. HTH. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::Admins can delete topics? Please check WT:Flow and xaosflux's experiences... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::It certainly isn't (wasn't?) a smooth process. [[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]] ([[User talk:Xaosflux|talk]]) 04:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:Has this stuff been fixed?  By the way, I can't see what I'm typing.  I use a dark-on-light coloring.  So I'll stop here.  This is awful.  Unusable. [[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, [[phab:T72662]] (mentioned by {{FlowMention|Quiddity (WMF)}}) is fixed.  Any issues with deletion should also be fixed (if not, let us know).
:We will take a look at the color issue.  Sorry about that, we fixed a similar issue earlier ([[phab:T74188]]).  I'm sorry it recurred.  Tracked as [[phab:T105759]]. [[User:Mattflaschen-WMF|Mattflaschen-WMF]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen-WMF|talk]]) 01:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What do [[User:Ottawahitech]], [[User:Oaktree b]], and [[User:Cirt]] think?  They were also involved in the original discussion to turn it on. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:I don't mind it, took some getting used to. [[Special:Contributions/|]] 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:And have any of them used it for project-related business since? Not recently, clearly. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::A low level of comments is pretty typical for this small project.  
::Comments on the old talk-page system (for the 6 months before Flow-related discussions started):
::* May 2013: 3 comments
::* June 2013:  3 comments
::* July 2013:  0 comments
::* August 2013:  5 comments
::* September 2013: 3 comments
::* October 2013:  1 comment
::Comments in Flow for the same months (excluding hidden comments):
::* May 2014:  6 comments
::* June 2014:  0 comments
::* July 2014:  17 comments (1 about Flow)
::* August 2014:  0 comments
::* September 2014:  16 so far (but 15 are about Flow)
::That looks like approximately a 70% increase in traffic year over year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::And? Are you going to use one slightly lively discussion as evidence for anything? Good going... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:User:Fram,  I did not frequently participate in proj-beakfast discussions even before this wiki-test started. Neither did anyone else. So as far as I am concerned the test can continue.
:I am disappointed though at the (very) slow rate of progress [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

==WikiProject X is live!==
[[File:WikiProject X icon.svg|100px|right|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject X]]Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject X|WikiProject X]]''' is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject X|check us out]]! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

'''Note:''' To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter]]. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

[[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]<nowiki>) ~~~~~</nowiki>
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at --> [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

==Notice: Data loss and recovery==
Hi all. Investigation is ongoing into a data-loss that was reported yesterday ([[phab:T95580]]), which seems to have been caused by a maintenance script updating the database. This affects all topic titles and post contents on this board prior to 11 February 2015. The Operations team is currently assisting with data-recovery from backups. We'll post more information here when we have it. We apologize for not having full information for you right now. Post here if you have any questions; we'll keep this Topic updated when we know more. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 06:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: The developers have a plan for recovery. They're going to talk to a few more members of the Operations team, to confirm the exact details, and various options, before proceeding. That is estimated to be Monday at this point, due to various people being away for the weekend. For the current discussions, please continue as normal! I'll update this topic again, when we have more information. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I suddenly feel like all the breakfasts I ever ate before 11 February 2015 never mattered. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to say that all of the data has been restored, so all of the old conversations on this page are back where they belong. We've fixed the problem that allowed the data loss to happen, so it won't happen again. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if you have any questions! [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

==Large blank area on right==
I work on verticle monitors. The fact that this talk page does not use more of the width of the screen is unfortunate. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]])
::Cool my signature still works but I need to remove these no wiki tags [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]]) 05:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the full Board, you can click the "X" in the right-hand sidebar to collapse it. (A Topic page version, will come later).  (and I hope to get a lot more feedback from you next week, in person :)  In the future, please leave written feedback at [[mw:Talk:Flow]] or [[WT:Flow]] so as not to fill this WikiProject's talkpage with offtopic discussion. Thanks! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Archive top|result=Testing on the wrong page [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)|status=resolved}}

==Flow bug check==
Hi. I hope I did not disturb here. I am adding a topic, you can ignore it. Thanks.

[[Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt]] [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 14:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And now in VE:

[[Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt]] [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course I was alerted to come check this out.  Good luck with testing. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, it '''is''' a bug. [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see now I needed to do this in [[WT:Flow/Developer test page]]. Sorry for this. I can delete all this and start again there, if you want me to. [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Archive top|result=There is consensus to end the test on this page. The majority opinion is that Flow is a hindrance to discussion here and it is buggy. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 09:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The WMF has been [ notified] of the close above. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 23:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I intend to formally appeal this close, but have no idea how to go about it, and my wiki-time is limited. Ottawahitech - who does not know how to sign this. See: [[mediawikiwiki:Talk:Flow/Request_Flow_on_a_page|]]

I have been preempted  by {{FlowMention|AlbinoFerret}}  who initiated a review of his own close at wp:AN see:


The close review has ended. The close was confirmed as correct.[] [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)|status=resolved}}

==RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?==
The WMF wanted to test how the experimental [[WP:FLOW]] would work for actual use for actual editors. WikiProject Breakfast volunteered to be a test site. Here is the first post from February 2014:
 Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. Please direct all feedback on the software to WT:Flow, to avoid distractions here. Thanks!
 Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again!
After the first few months of trial, use of this board for ''project work'' declined to zero. The most recent post I can find for project Breakfast activity appears to be 14 months ago. In the last 14 months the only posts here have been a trickle of comments about Flow itself, and discussion of Flow bugs.

Is there a consensus for "things not working out", and to inform the WMF to "stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page"?

NOTE: This RFC was opened on Nov 29. It's now December 21st and it just dawned on me that the RFC-bot hasn't processed this RFC because it's inside Flow. I just requested the bot-maintainer to process it manually. Hopefully we can get it listed on RFC-feedback-request-service for at least a few days.

{{cot|title=Purely technical advice for how to Close on a Flow board}}
Advice for any future RFC closer who may be unfamiliar with Flow.
# You can edit my post to remove the RFC template or other reason. Click the ... at top-right of my post.
# You should probably click the topmost ... (just below the star), select '''Summarize''' and write the close there.
# Flow has TWO editing modes. Visual Editor mode, and Wikitext mode. If you have any problems, try clicking the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki> icon at the bottom right. That toggles the two modes.
{{cob}} [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 09:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:I just posted to wt-beakfast recently
:In my opinion Flow should only be removed from w-proj Breakfast when/and if  Flow is declared a failure. We badly need a Flow-type solution to talk pages. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 01:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yep, I saw your post [ here]. One a day ago, a comment about Flow. I had to go back 14 months to find anyone posting about Breakfast work. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 02:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

'''Support''' as RFC author. Wikiproject Breakfast has been dead for over a year. It is impossible to know if Flow contributed to that death, and I have no idea if the project might revive after Flow is removed. However it is clear that this trial page is not severing the trial purpose anymore. There is zero use of this board of actual editors doing any actual work. The WMF can't collect any useful information from a corpse. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 00:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

forget it -- I cannot even write a coherent message here, ARRRGGGHHHH [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This may not be the most important wikiproject, but I think that active Flow testing is over. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot even tell from the threading who Cullen28 is agreeing with above, and I cannot cut&paste the user ID - must type it in. Is this the best the Flow-programmers can do?<div class="flow-post-content"></div> [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 01:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Alsee, the original poster. I supported the test of Flow here, but I think that it is safe to say that Flow seems to be opposed by the vast majority of experienced editors who encounter it. Innovative software upgrades will only be accepted if they do not interfere in any way, shape or form with the everyday work practices of experienced, productive encyclopedia editors. This is, after all, a <nowiki>''successful''</nowiki> though incomplete and imperfect project to create a free encyclopedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

replying to cullen328: <it is safe to say that Flow seems to be opposed by the vast majority of experienced editors who encounter it>

The question is are they opposing because the idea is flawed or because of the shoddy implementation? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:>are they opposing because the idea is flawed or because of the shoddy implementation?
:From what I've seen the
:WMF has hired skilled programmers. However there was zero community 
:input prior to building Flow. Management ordered the developers to build
:a chatboard, and that's what they built. There was no attention to Talk
:pages as a ''workplace'' rather than a ''chatboard'',
:and there was limited attention to integrating it with all of the wiki 
:aspects we expect (like page history). The design considerations were 
:backwards, and the software foundationlooks to be badly mismatched.
:Would ''something''
:new be good? I dunno. The fact that talk pages *are* article pages is a
:very powerful and integral part of what we do. If the editing community
:were involved in a start-from-scratch design, I'm not sure where that 
:would go. I'm pretty certain it would not be patches to Flow. The WMF 
:has invested so much time and money building *this* that they feel the 
:need to upgrade it until it's a success. I fear there's a [[Sunk cost fallacy]] here.
:By the way, if this 
:were a real Talk page I would refactor your comment and mine off to a 
:discussion section. Flow doesn't support that. We're stuck with 
:discussions of Flow itself crudding up the middle of the RFC !voting. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: Productive experienced editors working to build an actual encyclopedia do not care at all about "good ideas" in the abstract, because such ideas are plentifully available, for a dime a dozen. They care only about the implementation of those ideas in the least disruptive fashion. Speaking for myself, I am a 63 year old guy who is it not a professional programmer but had no problem whatsover learning wikicode when I started writing and improving encyclopedia articles in 2009. I do not want to learn new software features that are less productive and less intuitive than old software features. I welcome any upgrades that are entirely intuitive and non-disruptive to existing editors. I will oppose ill-conceived and poorly-implemented make-work projects for professional programmers. This is not an employment program for coders. It is an encyclopedia created by volunteers, who are article writers and researchers. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Cullen328.

However, the RFC is not about whether Flow should live or die -- it is only asking if its testing should be discontinued at  W-proj breakfast. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 02:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. But I consider this an opportunity to express my opinion on the broader issue as well. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above -- well said!

BTW looks like the thanks work [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 02:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, on second thought all I get is a thanks for the whole thread, not a particular permalink to a posting I made.. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:I get a vertical green bar next to the individual comment that was thanked.  It's a little subtle, but it scrolls to the correct spot in the thread and puts a ~2mm-wide medium-green bar on the left side of the comment. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support deactivating Flow here. Clearly not serving its purpose as a place for collaboration, and now that Flow development has been placed on hold and the WMF has given up on pushing it on wikis that don't want it, including this one, there's no reason to keep an anomaly around. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 07:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:''"Flow development has been placed on hold" source please? Thanks'' [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 19:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

<nowiki>Please. If anything it's been shown to be a problem. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The 14-month pause is not a concern for me. That is normal for most WikiProjects.

I support keeping Flow here until Flow development is officially done.

If any developer wants more use out of this board then I am still here to talk about breakfast. Appoint social media staff to bring people here with breakfast concerns to get more activity if the testing is useful. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] ([[User talk:Bluerasberry|talk]]) 12:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

<nowiki>And I had to come here to read your post, hovering over the diff on my watchpage showed nothing. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yup, navpopup support is definitely wanted. ([[phab:T65713]]) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like flow has degraded recently - the older topics on wikiproject breakfast are threaded. See: [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:The software will only indent a thread, if we're replying to a post that is not at the bottom of an existing indent. I.e. it will try to keep new posts at the same level (not a constant diagonal, which would then require some kind of {{tl|outdent}} system). It's a unique system, and many editors are finding it initially confusing; a few have explicitly said they like it, once they understand how it works. It will indent up to 8 levels currently. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Threading is still possible, as shown in this thread.

I don't see any point in discontinuing it.  I've stopped posting here because I haven't been working on breakfast-related articles this year, not because of the page format.

On the broader question, and speaking with my "WikiProject Council" hat on, a sitewide RFC is inappropriate.  This is the project's talk page, and the decision about how to handle their talk page lies with them, and not with a bunch of semi-random non-participants.  In addition to Ottawahitech, Cullen, Doug Weller, and Blueraspberry, it would be interesting to hear from {{FlowMention|Anna Frodesaik}}, {{FlowMention|Oaktree b}} and {{FlowMention|Northamerica1000}} (and others, but these are the names I remember from past discussions and haven't noticed above). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{FlowMention|WhatamIdoing }}, how can I thread this posting. Thanks in advance, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Well it appears I could thread my posing in response to [[User:WhatamIdoing]] above, but not the one to [[User:BethNaught]] below [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Note: "sitewide RFC" didn't work. The RFC bot can't handle flow so it never got processed. The advertisement was here and on the talk page for [[WP:Flow]]. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 02:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Per [[WP:CONLIMITED]], {{tq|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.}} If the enwp community wishes that Flow nowhere be used on its site, that should be up to it at large. It just happens that the use of Flow on this site is epitomised here.

Incidentally, I tried to add a link to CONLIMITED. When I typed the square brackets, I was confronted with a ridiculously overcomplicated add link interface and had to first escape it then move to wikitext mode, multiplying by at least twenty the typing time. That's an example of why simple wikimarkup is just better. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Beth, there is no "consensus on a wider scale" about whether Flow should be removed entirely, and an RFC on the disposition ''this page'' is not an appropriate forum to determine what that wider consensus might be.  
:This RFC is about ''this page''.  The primary purpose of ''this page'' is to facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users.  Your opinion – and mine – about the overall value of Flow is therefore much less relevant than the opinions of the actual members of that group about what they would prefer for their communication methods.
:(If you want to explain how pressing the Escape key and clicking on the wikitext icon took longer than it would have taken to type 2,200 words, then I recommend posting a note at [[Wikipedia talk:Flow]].) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::''The primary purpose of this page is to facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users.''
::As I noted in the original RFC notice, there has been no project activity in FOURTEEN MONTHS. The "identifiable small group of users" was zero.
::If you would like to ''challenge'' any close on this RFC on the basis that I advertised it too widely, you are welcome to do so. Although I suggest you put on [[WP:Snow|earmuffs and mittens]] first. Grin. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 06:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::([[User talk:Alsee|ta]]''"facilitate communication among an identifiable, small group of users."''
::I am afraid that this RFC has only served to draw in editors who have no involvement and are only pushing their own agenda. " [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:*First, you have to work out how to escape it. Second, I meant time to type the link.
:*I am minded to initiate a wider RfC. It's long past time the community actually made a formal decision about this. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 21:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{FlowMention|BethNaught}} It seems you have lost interest in  initiating a wider RfC so why is this software trial being discontinued without proper discussion or consensus? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what sort of RFC you are proposing, but per guideline [[WP:APPNOTE|Appropriate Notification]] ''Editors who have asked to be kept informed'', please inform me if you do start a Flow related RFC. I would be interested in reviewing any Flow-related proposal, and providing input based on my experience. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 06:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

{{FlowMention|BethNaught}}, If I recall correctly there were other wikiprojects besides Breakfast that joined the trial at roughly the same time (does anyone remember when that was?) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire]]. AFAIK that's the only other one. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:There's also, rather out of the blue, [[Wikipedia:Article request workshop]], a seemingly one-man project by {{ping|Harej}}, and a good example of what is wrong with Flow. I haven't found any discussion about creating that Flow page. There used to be another Flow page at some editor retention project, but as far as I remember that project has failed and folded. And then there is the main Flow test page, which is no longer a Flow page despite the best efforts of Jdforrester (WMF). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::I found the "discussion" for deploying Flow at Article Request Workshop. Sigh.
::It happened on [ Phabricator]. 
::# [[User:Harej]] asked for his own personal Flow board. He asked for it in ''Wikipedia namespace''! I quote: ''I think this would be the first Flow board to not be a talk page (though I suppose the talk page should also be a Flow, for consistency's sake)''
::#There was discussion that there had to be community buy-in before making any Flow deployments.
::#The Flow Project manager decided that since this was a non-existent page with no pre-existing users, there was no need for any community buy-in.
::It looks like it was less than 24 hours from initial request to approval and deployment.
::I'm gonna nominate it for XFD. The original user used it for a whopping three days, and abandoned it 8 months ago. There have been three fruitless posts since then. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 11:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::That is quite outrageous (but not unexpected). Progress at the WMF seems to be extremely slow and often regresses instead. If not XfD'ed, it should be fully protected as a non-permitted Flow page and a security hazard (all Flow pages are a serious security hazard, but unwatched ones even more so). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::(Looks like I can properly thread this post)
:::Talking of security risks.. I just witnessed something strange: I have two notification boxes in my toolbar: In the first (Your Alerts) I get the regular notifications such as thanks, articles link, pings etc., in the second (Your Messages) I get FLOW notifications. When I logged in earlier, though, a regular ping was sitting in my Flow box. It has now been moved to the box where I would normally expect it.
:::Just wondering if it is just one of those flukes, or has some manually interfered with my boxes, hmmm… [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::(but I cannot properly thread this one - though others who post a reply to my previous post now can)
:::The errant message was a ping from someone mentioned earlier in this thread. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::By the way, it's a good test, that MfD. My standard option for Flow pages is to hide the header, as it creates loads of empty space right down to the bottom of the page (if one ever is patient enough to reach that). So, when I open the article request workshop, ''I don't see that it is up for deletion''. Seems rather problematic, no? And of course, only having watchlisted one topic, I also don't get a notification on my watchlist. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I generally keep Flow set to wide mode too, and yeah I had the generic thought that the system was screwed. If you default to wide mode then you'll NEVER get to see any of the header info. I hadn't specifically thought about deletion notices, but yeah.... that's a killer example of how wide mode is just plain broken. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 12:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::Update: The MFD has been filed. Note that Twinkle choked a bit. Twinkle was unable to post the deletion notice onto a Flow page. I manually posted the deletion notice in the ''About this board'' sidebar. And surprise surprise, I found a new Flowbug. Depending on the browser zoom level, the right side of the template and some of the text disappears off screen. [[Wikipedia:Article_request_workshop|Click here]] and play with CTRL-plus / CTRL-minus. For me the problem shows up at 110% 120% and 130% zoom. At 140% the sidebar jumps to the top, which I guess is the intended behavior. That allows the "too large" template to render properly. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 12:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:The above was a reply to BethNaught, not to Ottawahitech. Is there any way to see this? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:And this is a reply to Ottawahitech. Spot the difference (or not, of course). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This page was converted in early 2014.  

I don't remember the name of the other WikiProject that signed up for Flow. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire|Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire]] is the other WikiProject [[User:HHill|HHill]] ([[User talk:HHill|talk]]) 12:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Flow is dead in the water. It's not going to help this WikiProject by remaining here buggy and unloved. The test should be discontinued. [[User:Scott|Scott]] ([[User talk:Scott|talk]]) 18:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:I sure hope Flow is not dead!!! If wikipedia cannot solve its problem of disfunctional talkpages, it will be the end of it, no doubt in my mind. And yes, I know there are editors here who think there is no problem with talkpages, but if so, why do I have to spend as much time formatting discussions at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture]] as I do actually participating in the discussion itself, and why are experienced editors refusing to continue participating because (for example) "I will not be watching this page further; the formatting is topsy-turvy, and the discussion is simply too large. …-[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)"
:(See:} [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 05:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:I participate in plenty of productive talk page discussions, spend almost no time formatting those talk pages, and simply move on when the conversation gets repetitive, tendentious and TLDR. I have much better things to do with my time. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::I notice you participate a fair bit in "voting" at [[Wikipedia:Requests-for-adminship|wp:Requests-for-adminship]] (repetitive/tendentious/TLDR?)  but I believe  you did not participate in [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform]]. Are you aware, for example, that [[Wikipedia:Watch-list|wp:watch-lists]] will used  to promote RFA discussions if not enough editors object (I think?)
::What’s worse are you aware that Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform has been [ viewed only  494 times] since it started two months ago (an average of about 8 views/day), despite widespread promotion? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
::Despite the problems with the RfA process, I do not consider my participation at RfAs to be repetitive, tendentious or too long to read. I find most RFAs to be easily manageable even if a few editors act like jerks. In almost all cases, I read the discussion easily, evaluate, decide, make a single comment, and move on. It lasts a week, and sometimes we actually get a useful new administrator out of it.
::On the other hand, I find the debates about RfA reform to be extremely lengthy and complex, usually unproductive, and filled with repetitive comments. Sometimes I read without commenting. I read a lot of things without commenting. If the people who spend lots of time in those debates actually accomplish something useful, then that is wonderful and I will support it. I feel no obligation to chime in on every debate, although I will usually express my opinion if asked in a one-on-one context.
::I favor publicizing RfAs (and other important governance discussions) through watchlist notices. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{FlowMention|Cullen328 }} Any discussion with more than a handful of participants is bound to become [[Wikipedia:Repetitive|wp:repetitive]], [[Wikipedia:Tendentious|wp:tendentious]], and [[Wikipedia:TLDR|wp:TLDR]]. That  does not mean that it is not important  to participate. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:I am a volunteer and comment where I choose to comment, and only there. I choose to comment where I find the discussion interesting and where I believe that my comments may possibly be useful and productive. I feel ZERO obligation to comment in other situations. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does having this page as a Flow page help Flow in any way? No, the traffic here is way too low to be of any use for Flow development. 

Does having this page as a Flow page help the Breakfast Project in any way? No, it hasn't attracted additional Breakfast-related traffic or project-minded editors, and hasn't made any Breakfast-related discussions any smoother, faster, ... On the other hand, it has caused this page to have a ratio of Flow-related discussions vs. Breakfast-related discussion of about 5 to 1, making it a lot less interesting as a page for the discussion of the Breakfast project. 

No benefit, clear disadvantages, only one possible conclusion: terminate the test and go back to standard talk page format. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the best arguments for needing a flow-like tool is the prevention of accidental/malicious editting-over  of  one's comment by another editor.

I just witnessed two such occasions one i[ n an RFA] and another  [ &nbsp;in&#x20;a&#x20;CfD] [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first link looks like merely poor diff software. Improving diff is one of the big items listed at the WMF Community Wishlist project. The second link seems to show some poorly placed replies, but I think this RFC demonstrates that Flow is a far worse problem. I'd give a cookie and an aspirin to whoever closes this. It's going to be a headache sorting out who is replying to who, and sorting out which of these posts are individual !votes. If I had to close this I would probably resort to ''ignoring'' the Flow structure and work from scratch. I'd make a text file listing participants' names, and just copy-paste !vote-comments and key issues to there.

P.S. Another reason I support converting this page back to Talk is that the WMF promises they have software to  convert Flow back to Talk if needed, preserving all discussions. There are serious concerns that the result of trying to convert Flow-to-Talk will be an unreadable mess. <u>I'm reluctant to let Flow anywhere near any important page, especially something like Village Pump or Administrator Noticeboard, if a Flow rollback will leave an unreadable record of discussions.</u> This page was a test deployment. Converting back to Talk will be a very valuable part of that test. We need to find out how well conversion back to Talk does/doesn't work here. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:OK here is another one from wp:vpp
:Looks like the comment from User:<s class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''''Fences and windows''''' '''has been removed completely?'''</s>
:(sorry no way to unbold in FLOW?)
:+ another one from talk-wikiproject council [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 22:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee, Looks like in the current implementation I am allowed to edit your post above mine. I just clicked the ... beside your box and it opened up in edit mode (no I did not modify it btw).

The people who programmed this sure did not do a very good job, did they? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 02:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame the WMF, grin. The WMF made a list of "expectations" that people have for normal forum software, and one of their items was that being able to edit other people's comments was extremely unexpected. They initially built it so that only admins had that ability. Many editors strongly argued to preserve the ability to edit other people's comments, both for practical and wiki-culture reasons(*). The WMF decided it wasn't worth fighting over that detail. They made it a configuration options for who could edit comments. I believe default is currently set to Autoconfirmed users. <s>I'm sure the WMF gleefully re-restrict it to admins if the community gave an ok on it.</s> ''Strike, possibly unfair portrayal, I was recalling some quite old comments I read.''

(*) Practical and cultural reasons:
* Practical: If you look at the top of the RFC, my original post has a collapsed section with technical advice for closers. In item #1 I noted ''You can edit my post to remove the RFC template or other reason. Click the ... at top-right of my post''. Grin. We don't often need to edit other's comments, but it is sometimes a nice and helpful freedom to have that technological wall out of the way.
* Cultural: Editors are granted a powerful ability to edit almost everything, and we expect editors to use that ability collaboratively and responsibly. When editors discover they can edit other comments, I believe there's often a powerful realization that ''it would be a very bad idea'' to do that. There's no need for a new user to read a rules page saying they can get blocked for that sort of abuse. It is a powerful signal that we have a very different culture here, a culture where people are expected to behave themselves and ''respect'' other people's comments. I believe that also encourages more respect for other editors as well. Sometimes things can get heated here, but we almost never get the flamewars that obliterate almost any other forum where people discuss controversial topics. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 08:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alsee, You must live in a different world than I do. I have had my comments messed with on talk-pages almost from day one. In one case at least,  it was deliberate and I was warned to keep quiet about it. And no I was not being abusive, just expressing my views in a respectful way. I have also seen this done to others. For example it is common to simply delete unpopular posts when hatting them would suffice. 

To make this short, if FLOW will allow us to  edit others comments (which happens mostly on the sly because few check the history) I see no reason to support it.

[demonstration edit] [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 20:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

{{FlowMention|Ottawahitech}} Flow will leave an indicator if someone other than the original author last-edited a comment, and will send the original author a notification. I'll edit your post, to demonstrate. (Both are improvements on, and not feasible in, the wikitext contentmodel discussions). Editing someone else's comment is a useful option to have available, for things like fixing broken links or wikimarkup. (Instead of needing to make a new comment asking the original author to do so)

{{FlowMention|Alsee}} No, there is no desire from anyone on the current team, to re-restrict comment editing. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 20:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks {{FlowMention|Quiddity (WMF)}} I believe this is much better solution than the current situation where few if any  are aware that talk-comments have been  removed or modified
:BTW any chance of fixing the threading which will insert my reply here before Alsee's apology which right now follows unindented? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 22:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment was not accurate to the current situation. I read comments that restricted-editing was the preferred setting, but thinking about it, those comments were rather old. They were from the timeframe when the WMF agreed to enable comment editing. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is all very well and good, but continues to not have anything to do with breakfast; which is a strong argument for removing Flow from this page, because its presence acts as a huge noise magnet and detracts from getting any relevant work done on the actual topic. [[User:Scott|Scott]] ([[User talk:Scott|talk]]) 11:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:I completed a breakfast related article [[Joe's Special]]  a few days ago. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::I started a new topic on Joe's special for those  interested in Breakfast discussion.
::...but got a [dbccce17 Exception Caught: Undefined is not a valid UUID] when I tried to post the permalink to the new Topic (correct lingo?) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
:so why not start a new topic on this   instead of posting offtopic? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ scott Just wondering if you are interested in participating in breakfast discussion? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to close this now. [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As consensus has been found to remove Flow I have [[phab:T122961|requested that at Phabricator.]] [[User:Scott|Scott]] ([[User talk:Scott|talk]]) 15:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:WHY? You don't seem to have any interest in participating in this trial, do you? So why impose your views on those of us who have spent hours and days trying to get this thing going? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe your action was justified. How mamy partipants here had      any connection to wikiproject BF? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@            [[user:AlbinoFerret]]

A consensus of [[SIX editors User talk:Ottawahitech|SIX editors]] is all that is needed to remove a major software test from wikipedia????????????????? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:No, as this RFC is formatted, the question is to remove it from this wikiproject, not all of WP. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:{{FlowMention|AlbinoFerret}} So, are you saying that 6 editors most of whom have never participated in this trial on this wikiproject can shut it down just because? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:Because its a [[WP:RFC]], please read the page to further understand what a RFC is. RFC 's are specifically designed to allow any editor in good standing in the community to comment on a question. They are used most of the time when editors on the page can not come to agreement.  There have been questions about the scope of the question, I have clarified the close. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:{{FlowMention|AlbinoFerret}} I ask again : What consensus are you referring to? By whom? Do you mean the six editors who parachuted into this wikiproject without knowing anything about its background? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:The consensus is found by including all participants who commented in the RFC. I have provided the basis for this, [[WP:RFC]]. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:{{FlowMention|AlbinoFerret}} Already responded on your talk page: [[User talk:AlbinoFerret|User_talk:AlbinoFerret#Your_summary_of_.22RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F.22]] [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 20:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:This is going round in circles, I think I have answered all your questions. If you have any policy based questions, making sure to include the policy with a link, leave a message on my talk page. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See [[User talk:Ottawahitech|User_talk:Ottawahitech#Flow_.2F_projectbreakfast_RFC]] [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a dedicated test page for Flow, and there is a talk page for this project. What is not clear is why Ottawahitech and others are so insistent that this page must be used as a Flow trial page for an unlimited time, when the previous year of testing here hasn't really achieved anything, and the activity here is way too low to be useful information anyway. Apart from a principled stand that "outsiders" shouldn't decide what talk page format or system is used by this project (which is an incorrect position anyway, as the general consensus is not to use Flow on enwiki at the moment), what purpose does this protest have. Has Flow made this project and the collaboration on it one tiny bit better? No, not at all, all extra traffic on this page is Flow-related and the project talk is few and far between.

Use this page for it's real purpose, project discussion, and use the Flow test page for that purpose, but don't mix the two when after a year it has become clear that it has no positive effects anyway for either cause. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I concede defeat, just another waste of time and effort on my part. [[User talk:Ottawahitech#Flow at projectbreakfast RFC - too depressing|Thank you]] to Alsee. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Ottawahitech has limited time and knowledge of RFC reviews I have started one here. [ [] Editors here may wish to add comments. [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

{{FlowMention|AlbinoFerret}} I started a response, but please don't push it yet. I am having difficulty tallying up those  who formed the so-called consenus, So far I have counted 3 solid opposes.

Also, please don't count me as a non-member. I am not registered as such, but I believe this is only a technicality. I have been involved in project right from its fomation, and probably have as much involvement in it as anyone (other than [[user:Northamerica1000]]) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 21:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree with your comment about how difficult it was to sort out the tally. Running an RFC inside Flow was a disaster. Just prior to the close I wanted to figure out what the situation was. I carefully reviewed every post in the discussion as if if I were going to close it. Here is the basic participant list I came up with:

* Alsee: Support as RFC author
* Cullen328: I agree 100%... Flow testing is over.
* BethNaught: Support deactivating Flow here.
* Doug Weller: Please. If anything it's been shown to be a problem.
* Scott: The test should be discontinued.
* Fram: terminate the test and go back to standard talk page format.

* Ottawahitech: Flow should only be removed from w-proj Breakfast when/and if  Flow is declared a failure.
* Bluerasberry: I support keeping Flow here until Flow development is officially done.
* WhatamIdoing: I don't see any point in discontinuing it.

'''No position'''
* HHill - One comment, nothing resembling a !vote.
* Quiddity (WMF) - Apparently posting in an official capacity. I see nothing resembling an attempt to !vote.

6 clear support, 3 clear oppose, 2 non-participant comments. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:try again? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually do not like taking a public discussion such as this one and moving it to a semi-private user-talkpage, where it may be tampered with  by the user. I have made an exception here because it appears this page may soon disappear from public view, and have communicated with editors about what is happening on my own talkpage. See: [[User talk:Ottawahitech|User_talk:Ottawahitech#I_will_be_appealing_the_close_of_projectbreakfast_RFC]]

Tried to respond to Alsee's post above but after spending a fair bit of time composing a post I get

[2cda5ba5] Exception Caught: Undefined is not a valid UUID [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 15:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

{{FlowMention|Ottawahitech}}, bug reported as [[Phab:T123264]]. Thanks. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

==Joe's Special==
[[User:Cullen328|'''Cullen328''']]  posted [ about this here]. Any comments? [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Article in question: [[Joe's Special]]. (I've fixed the link above, too. :-) [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It turned out significantly better than I expected (I had low expectations, chuckle). The archive boxes were a pleasant surprise.
I skimmed the whole thing. Nothing big jumped out at me, other than (expected) difficulty following the reply structure. It was often very hard to follow the discussion in Flow as well.

The big question, are you going to do synthetic edits to replicate the history? That would definitely help someone trying to sort out any confusing aspects. Or is this limited to dumping the final snapshot?

Replicating the history would be quite hard to do. Since chronological history don't necessarily correspond with the order of topics/posts (a reply/edit may be to an earlier topic/post), we'd have to keep a pointer to every single post/topic/thing during the conversion to know where to make the change as we replay the history chronologically. This is where we would end up pushing the machine memory & likely run into a lot of edge cases. (This is pretty much why we wanted structured discussions to begin with, so all parts of a discussion are isolated)

While I'm sure we could find ways around the technical troubles this would bring, I don't think it's good use of anyone's time (because it would take a lot). We will, however, archive (and lock) the Flow board, so that history is not lost.

As Matthias noted, we decided not to do this now, due to resource constraints.

However, see also for another possible approach (not for now, though). That still requires maintaining a topic -> section mapping, and there can be multiple topics with the same name.

Snapshotting a whole topic at a given point in time (required by that idea) will also be hard. is exactly what I had in mind when I asked about synthetic edits to preserve history, grin.

For just Project Breakfast, I don't see the lack of history replication as a major issue. It would be important if this were to get broader use for some reason. Regarding archiving and locking the Flow board, I hadn't really pictured that as part of rolling back a Flow trial. If that is done it will likely just get deleted. The majority of Flow boards on EnWiki have been deleted. The three Flow pages that remain will probably end up removed as well, and we've been talking about maybe running Central Community discussion for complete removal of Flow from all of EnWiki. If we decide not to move forwards with Flow then we're better off with the technical simplicity of removing legacy cruft completely.

May I suggest that the idents take the form of *, and *, instead of the colons, since the bullets make it easier to see where one post ends and the next begins.

BTW, apparently asterisks do some kind of formatting here that I don't know how to suppress.

That can be done. I've updated my earlier comment to reflect what the source would look like with asterisks instead of :.
Who can confirm whether we want : or *?

I agree * enhances readability. Something appears to have gone astray at a few spots though, for example the comment at 06:26, 30 November 2015. A single comment is broken into a bunch of lines with a * for each line.

Mmh yeah, that's wrong. If we use *, we can't prefix every line with it.

I'm also concerned that when using an asterisk, it will be confusing to make out which line is a reply, and which line is still the same reply but a real list in that reply.
Or I add another space after the asterisk-as-indent, in which case the content lists just won't be rendered as list, but that's also suboptimal.
Or I keep :-indent, and add something (e.g. *) in front of every comment to help visualize where a new post starts (but then all first paragraphs will be slightly more indented, because of that additional character)

What do you think would be most clear?

Re: : vs * - I think the : indents are slightly clearer overall, particularly for multiline posts.

Please also switch the signature used:

  • From [[Special:Contributions/Foo|Foo]] to instead use [[User:Foo|Foo]] ([[User talk:Foo|talk]])


Re: : vs * - I think the : indents are slightly clearer overall, particularly for multiline posts.

I also think : is much more standard, probably partly due to the problems you've been discussing with : (* lists are relatively common, : is not used too often for an *actual* definition list on talk pages)

Please also switch the signature used:

  • From [[Special:Contributions/Foo|Foo]] to instead use [[User:Foo|Foo]] ([[User talk:Foo|talk]])

I think this is just an artifact of the remote testing. For a local test, it looks like:

==Not resolved, no summary==
This is a normal topic. [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
: Inline reply by another user [[User:Other|Other]] ([[User talk:Other|talk]]) 01:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
: Reply by original user [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 01:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply by anon [[Special:Contributions/|]] 01:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(note different behavior for anons and users, which matches standard signatures).

I restored :-based indents.

The signatures were indeed because I'm running this from my machine, where these users don't exist. I've updated the code to generate semi-correct signatures, but until it's run on out deployment servers, it still won't take user's nickname & fancysig into account.

Export in earlier reply has been updated with latest results.

Change 264249 merged by jenkins-bot:
Fix convertToText.php & let it query remote APIs

Checked in betalabs - the output includes board description, topics, topics' summaries, posts, also resolved topics.

I did not see Deleted, hidden, and suppressed topics in the output. They are not included by design?

Yes, I believe that was intentional: hidden topics are supposed to be the equivalent of reverted sections in wikitext.

Change 269194 had a related patch set uploaded (by Matthias Mullie):
Fix convertToText

Change 269194 merged by jenkins-bot:
Fix convertToText

Catrope added a subscriber: Catrope.

Yes, I believe that was intentional: hidden topics are supposed to be the equivalent of reverted sections in wikitext.

So they are available in the edit history?

Yes, I believe that was intentional: hidden topics are supposed to be the equivalent of reverted sections in wikitext.

So they are available in the edit history?

Hiding a topic will leave a history entry like this:

(cur | prev | topic) 07:38, 23 February 2016 . . (talk) hid the topic "New topic" (Testing, why else?) . . (-9)‎ (unhide)

But convertToText.php will is just a "snapshot" of the current state of the board, there is no history (the history is still available in the archived Flow board)