Hi Myrtone,
you moved the content of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bugzilla to a page called "achrive 1". Apart from the misspelling I don't understand the reasoning behind. "Clearing discussion for liquid threads" does not tell me much, and I'd prefer to revert this currently - it didn't feel that crowded yet to deserve making people click one more time. What do you think?
Sorry about the typo and thanks for fixing it, some others have done similar archivals. I thought there was a move to adopt liquid threads across all talkpages here. There had been no comments on that page since last year, and that talkpage had not yet been liquified. But because there was already discussion on that page, I thought it needed to go somewhere in order for liquid threads to be added. Fact is that liquid threads is a far superior discussion system to what is found on most talkpages on most wikis, though many still have a hard time accepting this.
I prefer to not use LQT on the Bugzilla talk page as LQT is unmaintained code (and will be superseded by Flow) - hence I do not want to extend its use and I do not want to use LQT for the Bugzilla Talk page. I did not fix the typo either as I likely do not have rights on mediawiki.org to move pages, sorry. I'd appreciate if you could revert your changes.
I don't know what an "unmaintained" code is. Although LQT is an unmaintained code, it is already in use on many other talkpages, what's so special about the Bugzilla talkpage? And Jdforrester, who help found wikipedia's arbitration committee, has already fixed the typo.
Unmaintained means that basically nobody works anymore on the LQT codebase in order to fix problems. There are some drive-by fixes by volunteers, but in general it is a codebase that nobody recommends to install on any new wikis. This is also written at the top of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads . There is nothing special about the Bugzilla talkpage, it's just that I maintain Bugzilla and hence care about anything Bugzilla-related. :) I don't understand why it's a good argument to say that LQT is already used on many other talkpages if it's also NOT used on many wikipages and talkpages... It probably boils down to the question "who decides what's good" (I for myself don't know if there's any process for this in place), and I prefer to not have to deal with LQT and its many issues and shortcomings. One funny thing for example is that the link that I get as the notification email for your latest comment is http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Myrtone&offset=20130911233218&lqt_mustshow=33034#Talk:Bugzilla_move_to_archives_33034 which showed an old revision of your userpage for me which does not even show our recent conversion here, due to LQT.
I get similar links in my email notification but it did not encounter that problem.
Alright, but that was only one example. Now could you revert using LQT please for that page?
I'm not an administrator, and I don't belive that one has to be an administrator to revert such a thing, just note that this wiki is not compulsory, almost every contributor on nearly every wiki, and nearly every forum poster is only a volunteer. If consensus is to revert using liquid threads, one can just remove {{#useliquidthreads:1}} and revert the pagemove.
