Page MenuHomePhabricator

Link to automatically-generated archived talk page in Flow side rail
Open, MediumPublic

Description

When an existing wikitext talk page is converted to Flow, the wikitext page is automatically archived.

There is a link to the archived talk page in a module on the Flow side rail -- a module that appears just above the categories.

We need a design for what this looks like. It should be visible, but not dominating.

Event Timeline

DannyH assigned this task to Pginer-WMF.
DannyH raised the priority of this task from to Medium.
DannyH updated the task description. (Show Details)
DannyH moved this task to Product/Design Work on the Collaboration-Team-Triage board.
DannyH added a subscriber: DannyH.

I need some more details on this. From what I understand there are two different cases:

  • The original talk page already has archived content before the migration. In that case an archive template is already present with the listing of all archived pages and options to search.
    • Since Flow content does not get archived, the current archive will become more and more obsolete. Do we want to keep the archive template in a prominent way (in case we have some decision there since those templates in the header are community-created)?
  • The original talk page has no archive before the migration. This page will become the archived legacy content.
    • We want to let users know where is the old content but I think that the last talk page message is not more relevant than the first flow post that came the day after the migration. That is why I proposed some time ago integrating the archive indication after the last flow message (mockup below). In that way, a recently migrated page will have the access to the old content very visible but as new content gets added, the new content will take precedence (The archive indication being still visible through the ToC).

Archived_content.png (471×646 px, 42 KB)

This task is for redesigning the templates we use for archiving. They ones that show up on the Flow page are:

https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:LQT_page_converted_to_Flow
https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikitext_talk_page_converted_to_Flow

There are archive (shown) and date parameters.

There are others that show up on the archive page, which I can give you if you're interested, but it's not really in scope.

Note, these are on-wiki templates. So I'm assuming you will design this and we'll either make the edit or propose to the communities and let them decide. However, even if they take your designs as a starting point, they will probably get customized over time. /cc @Quiddity

I like the second idea (archive link at the bottom of the infinite scroll), but we'll have to re-visit it later.

Mattflaschen-WMF renamed this task from Link to automatically-generated archived talk page in Flow side rail to Redesign templates that Flow boards use to link to archives created at time of Flow-ification.May 5 2015, 7:21 PM
Mattflaschen-WMF set Security to None.
DannyH renamed this task from Redesign templates that Flow boards use to link to archives created at time of Flow-ification to Link to automatically-generated archived talk page in Flow side rail.May 5 2015, 10:20 PM

Changed the title back :) -- sorry, I didn't explain this ticket very well.

I think we do actually need a link to the last archived talk page, when we've autoarchived.

I like the idea of a final topic at the bottom of the page which links to previous discussions, but there's another basic use case that I think that doesn't address.

The use case is:

A user comes to an active talk page which was converted to Flow. The user wants to see an old conversation, which they know was before Flow. The user has to scroll all the way down in the ToC to access the link to the archived talk page, assuming that they know that's where the link is.

It's likely that on many busy pages on a super-active wiki, people will add the new link to the archive template in the side rail, but we can't count on that happening everywhere. I think if we're going to auto-convert a bunch of pages to Flow, then we need to auto-generate a link in the side rail.

Does that make sense?

A user comes to an active talk page which was converted to Flow. The user wants to see an old conversation, which they know was before Flow. The user has to scroll all the way down in the ToC to access the link to the archived talk page, assuming that they know that's where the link is.

The same is true for the last Flow comment at the bottom of the ToC, it is at the end of the ToC and users have to scroll to it (or use search when available). I don't see what makes that Flow message less important than the first of the archived ones on the talk page to justify having a more prominent link to the later.

What I'm trying to say is that we are emphasising messages posted before a random date (the migration date) more than those that came after them for no apparent reason. If we keep the archive link prominent we may also give the impression that that is the place where Flow messages are also added after a while as it happens in the current Talk page model.

With the filtering mechanism in place, a user will go to the ToC and filter messages former to a given date. Then, the only link will be the indicator of the archived messages which will lead the user there. We can also decide to show archived topics as individual items in the ToC and provide a filter to facilitate their access, but that would keep the chronological relationship with topics following Flow mental models.

A user comes to an active talk page which was converted to Flow. The user wants to see an old conversation, which they know was before Flow. The user has to scroll all the way down in the ToC to access the link to the archived talk page, assuming that they know that's where the link is.

It's likely that on many busy pages on a super-active wiki, people will add the new link to the archive template in the side rail, but we can't count on that happening everywhere.

We should be able to count on this, because it's done in our conversion/enable script (this was part of Phase 2 of EnableFlow). It sounds like we may need to have another discussion about this.

What I'm trying to say is that we are emphasising messages posted before a random date (the migration date) more than those that came after them for no apparent reason.

This is a completely valid point. The question is just which we want to block the LQT->Flow migration on MediaWiki.org:

  1. This feature for showing archive pages (or individual archived topics, but this is more complicated) at the end of infinite scroll (this also requires trying to detect all the pre-Flow archives)
  2. Better-designed archive templates

The second is simpler to implement, so the question is whether it's good enough for now.

the question is whether it's good enough for now.

Yes. My main concern was for the long term where the initial archival becomes less relevant. So I'm ok in having some templates initially.

We can make the style align with the topic headers (#f0f0f0). I added a border (#ddd) to make them work on both the right rail and the talk page header. In addition, the text has been shortened:

archived-template-header.png (793×1 px, 243 KB)

archived-templare-right-rail.png (793×1 px, 245 KB)

I'm also not sure why a different message was proposed for LQT ("Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at..."). Can't we use a consistent text in both cases?

Consistent text is fine. Where can I find that folder icon? Do you want a custom color for the link (I recommend not)?

Where can I find that folder icon?

Icon is available here. Also attached below:

Do you want a custom color for the link (I recommend not)?

No, just a plain regular link.

Pginer-WMF added a subscriber: Pginer-WMF.