Talk:LiquidThreads 3.0/archive 1

Feature requests

Keep refactoring possible

See also Tracking bug, Thread:Talk:LiquidThreads/Redesign/Summaries, Thread:Talk:LiquidThreads/Redesign/Discussion status, "No way to multi-home a thread" [early discussion got lost somewhere, probably http://liquidthreads.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Feedback ], LackOfReworking, w:en:Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

Make a page of threads totally editable

Major feature request: make LT totally editable. That is, allow any user to edit all aspects of parts of a talkpage - node indentation (what it replies to), merging of two nodes, merging of two threads, &c.

These have obvious everyday uses:

• editing indentation: a comment is made "in reply to" one node, but should really be replying to something one level up; or two comment threads are merge in a refactoring
• editing thread: three threads are about the same topic, in a confusing way. The whole thread-collection needs to be refactored under a parent level-1 thread.

ReWriting articles: gay So true I like to RW talk pages Refactoring: gay or too gay? No way Talk page refactors are not gay Übergäy

Refactoring: gay or not? Article rewriting is gay So true Gay or too gay? No way Talk page refactoring is notgay It is Übergäy I like to rewrite talk pages

Without this, LT and the current mechanism for summaries has limited use for large wikis -- refactoring is important for larger discussions. Sj 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is one aspect of liquidthreads being splitted on so many pages with weird relationships instead of a single page you can easily edit seeing or changing everything. Nemo 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Make all comments editable by everyone

See also Thread:Extension talk:LiquidThreads/Redesign/Is it really necessary to allow users to edit each other's posts?

Comments should be editable by everyone - or at least by all logged-in users.

Perhaps this can be its own separate right, one that individual mediawiki installations can set for themselves -- but for WMF wikis it should be available to all contributors.

It is frequent that one person needs to tweak someone else's comment; this should not be any more difficult than it is in the current LQT. Sj 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

i disagree....i want my comment to be moderated only by admins. my comment is MY oppinion

Include editor's name in e-mail notifications

Could you please include the name of the user who posted a reply or created a new thread in the e-mail notification? We use LQT 2.0 in my office, and that's a common complaint. --Csagedy 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Linear threads

I realize that the "threaded" style, where replies are indented, is something of an established tradition on wikis now, but it seems to me that is due to the lack of any sort of graphical separation between posts more than a desire for the threaded style itself. Looking over some recent comments on en.wikipedia with reactions to LiquidThreads it seems to me that one of the main criticisms is that we're forced to view threads using the "threaded" style. On phpBB and vBulletin there's an option to view threads in "linear" or "flat" mode, so that they're not indented. I think that using that sort of display mode as an option, or even as the default, would go a long way in curtaining criticism of LiquidThreads. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is good idea to have a linear mode as an option, but I'm not sure whether it should be the default or not. Helder 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Version 3 includes a mockup of a flat mode version. --Jorm (WMF) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Vote on topics

This is a feature suggestion, add a very simple voting ability (e.g., "like", although it could be open-ended) to a given topic then spit out the tally of positive votes put on that topic.    Thorncrag   19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a poll feature would likely work best as an additional extension upon the extension.--Jorm (WMF) 18:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade from LiquidThreads 2

Will users of LiquidThreads 2 be able to upgrade to LiquidThreads 3 without losing all of their threads? I think this is very important to current users of LiquidThreads.--Xevo 21:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is currently the plan, yes.--Jorm (WMF) 18:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Discussions tag

Another feature idea, a tag that would pull recent discussions onto a page would be really nifty (e.g. {{#lqt|Talk:LiquidThreads|5_topics}}.    Thorncrag   20:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the mockups, something like this exists, though I'm not certain it's clear. At any rate, the threads should be auto-sorted so that the most recently active threads bubble to the top.--Jorm (WMF) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he is refering to the possibility of add the recent threads of one page to a section of another page (something similar to wikibooks:Project:Discussion index). Helder 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, it would probably be mostly useful for community/portal or project pages where you could perhaps pull recent discussions onto the portal page as a feature "Recent Discussions" - it could be just the topic subject, or perhaps pull the thread summary if there was one. It could be a good way to draw attention to hot topics for users who may not actually frequent the talk pages.    Thorncrag   18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is bugzilla:25055 or even bugzilla:25054. Nemo 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Display Like A Reviews

would it be possible to display for example 10 recent posts below the main article page like here tripadvisor? i want to use LQT 3.0 on a review wiki.

You mean like this feature requested above? Nemo 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cancelled?

According to the last status update, this project was put on hold in favour of developing the "mood bar" in July/August (and this has been reiterated in several monthly engineering reports), also it is not listed in the categories "WMF Projects 2011q2" or "q3". In the August Engineering report it was not mentioned at all.

Does this mean that LiquidThreads has been indefinitely shelved? Wittylama 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not been canceled. It is (and has been) back-burnered, but never canceled. The "Full Monty" package for LQT is a lot of work, and one of the things we're trying to do is slowly ramp up some of the features of it in other areas (WikiLove is an example of this - adding ways to express gratitude). --Jorm (WMF) 18:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

According to LiquidThreads_3.0/status it has been canceled now, July 2012, however. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered topics

For small wikis, or communities or projects on Wikimedia sites, it might be nice to have a feature that would allow you to display topics which are unanswered - which would help organizers see which posts they might like to respond to.    Thorncrag   17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually especially useful for big requests pages. There are some requests to that purpose, bugzilla:24815 (and children) or even all these. Nemo 08:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Plan for "re-energising" LQT?

According to the Roadmap, in the "July 2012 and later" section, LiquidThreads is planned to be "re-energised (and possibly renamed)". Can someone give some more details on this? Is it wishful thinking or really possible that this project will finally receive the love it deserves? Wittylama 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the last pieace of news we got. I'd say that the WMF is really serious about the development of LQT 3, but I'm not sure it will be completed soon. It doesn't seem realistic to think that they'll also throw money on LQT 2.0 to support current users. Nemo 08:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this really worth spending resources on?

Whenever I've discussed LT either in person or on-Wiki, the other editors have agreed with me that it is not just not useful but not a good idea. Has an effort been made to make sure there is a clear consensus that this is worthwhile? I presume there's no plans to extend this to en.Wiki as I'm sure it would be rejected. Dougweller 11:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Links, please? Sj 06:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This recent discussion on Meta (now closed) is probably enough to show the current sentiment about LQT 2. I don't think it's against the idea of LQT in general. Nemo 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the numerous Wikimedia communities that are enthusiastic about LQT, and have even gained consensus and requested (but not received) early deployment of the horrible buggy version outnumber the English Wikipedia community by a huge margin. The English Wikipedia community itself is mostly convinced that LQT2 is the final version of LQT and haven't actually ever had a serious discussion on the merits of an eventual perfected threaded discussion system. The fact is, the current discussion system is complicated, and most people simply can't figure it out. Thus, reworking discussion layout is a priority for the WMF (I hope). I personally don't think the issue of ENWP deployment is something worth spending time on any time soon. --Yair rand 10:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not only about en.wiki. The enthusiasm was when the extension actually worked, the interest exists (as I said) but only for future releases. Nemo 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm developing a wiki at an intranet environment of 40 thousand users. All users, common people that knows only the basic about computer unanimously were relieved when I activated Liquid Threads 2.0. Despite the bugs of that version, it organized well the discussion in a blog like system that people are used to. They found the raw talk pages awful, a real mess. I hope WMF foundation continues the development of LQT 3.0 --Luis Orlando 14:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely still in the pipeline, and I believe it to be one of the most fundamentally important steps we can take towards the future of the software. The issue is really all about prioritization and lack of resources to work on it. --Jorm (WMF) 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please put it on the front burner since LQT 2.0 is on life-support and silently fades away. I guess LQT is equally important than the VisualEditor. No kidding on this one. Hopefully Article Feedback will be stable soon to move on to LQT. Heaps of people will love you for this. Cheers --[[kgh]] 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)