Flow pages seem to have no possibility to be redirected to another page. How can this be done?
Topic on Talk:Structured Discussions/Flow
It is not possible at the moment, but there is a trick: make a /subpage in your userspace; page-move it on top of the empty Flow board.
I've pushed the task on Phabricator to have that problem solved.
I'm asking about this talk page that should not exist but as a redirtect over here. As it's something the WMF has botched, it's their duty to fix it.
Flow is not on active development now. As I've said, I've pushed that request. I'll see if it is difficult to have it fixed as a bug, or if it is a new feature (which may be a little bit more complicated to code).
Your need is considered and I appreciate to have your feedback to push that need forward. :)
Could you not simply delete that page and restart it as a normal talk page? That should fix it. There's nothing in there but my rant, I don't care about that history. And of course do the same with all other talk pages of translations, that should be redirects to the only valid one as well.
I'm going to delete that page and try to create a redirect.
About the idea of creating redirects for all translations units, that should be discussed with translators. :)
It should be discussed with those, who are supposed to answer questions. If you create talk pages, or even just Flow stuff, in many languages, it's of course the duty of those who created them to maintain them and to answer the questions, you can't expect to have a proper discussion on drölfzig verschiedenen discussies here on this meta page.
Sorry but I went ahead and disabled Flow on that page.
Thanks for that constructive edit.
Is this something every editor can do, or is it restricted to admins?
It's restricted.
Unfortunately you deleted the correct redirect again, so now it's again a useless Flow Forum.
I'm afraid I don't understand your idea.
Having a redirect for all translation sub items is not related to Flow but to Translators practices, no?
Translation of meta pages is about the readability of those pages not only for English speakers. To disperse the discussions of this topics to several unconnected venues is imho detrimental to a diverse community, they would be several disconnected discussions, and as I expect with the English hegemony in the wikiverse all other language discussions will go straight to the virtual bin.
How would you keep track about, say, 20 discussions in 20 languages her on this particular meta-wiki? How will you make sure tat all concerned people will even see the Chinese or German questions and discussions, if they are not bundled in one page?
Now you have to be bold to start a thread in a discussion in your own language, but it can be done, and those pages are at least watched, and some translators, not usually official ones, could a) translate to and from English and b) perhaps even answer straight away in the other language.
OK, the fanboys of Flow once promised that this should be possible with Flow, as every thread could be automagically (or manually) be attached to different discussion pages, and thus be monitored in one place. But last time this was asked for, it was not working.
So that discussion is not about Flow but about readability and discussing if it is relevant to gather discussions.
If I understand correctly, your point is still about redirecting all conversations by language about a translations to one place (imho, that's a good idea). You need then to discuss with other translators to decide if redirect all sub pages to one single place is the best option. That was my point since the beginning of that digression. ;-)
The feasibility by Flow is an other question, not related at all. Redirects will be done by the end of the current quarter, and that has been decided after your feedback. If translators decide to gather all translations to one place what would be then feasible both on wikis which use Flow or the classical discussion system. Flow, coupled with Cross-wiki notifications, give people the ability to know a new topic has been created about a translation.
Display Flow Topics on multiple pages and having a place to gather all discussions you watch are features that are possibly feasible. We are waiting for Flow satisfaction survey results to how more about these needs. I'll not expand about that, because you know the details and that's is off-topic. :-)
It's not all conversations by language about a translation to one place, it's all conversations about a topic to one place. The translations are about one concrete topic in one same wiki, not about the transfer of articles in other wikis, or some meta discussions about translations in general. That's nothing to do with the translators, but with the stake holders in the meta pages content. The discussion pages I mentioned are the discussions for the topic, as they are in the translated versions of certain pages in the regular place where content discussions should occur.
The translated versions of pages here in one of the meta wikis, be it mediawiki.org or meta.wikimedia.org or whatever, are for the better understanding and proliferation of the content of that page, and the associated talk pages are by definition as well about the content of the page. Currently, if a meta page is translated, there is as well a associated talk page for the translated language, and readers, that want to comment about the content will of course go there and write some remarks or questions or suggestions about that topic on that talk page, if it's not redirected to one unified talk page.
Do you have an example (even if it is a fake one)? Thanks!
and all other language versions of meta:Talk:2016_Strategy/Community_consultation/Communities as well from some time ago.
It was me, after a misclick on logout., Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!
Both examples are not related to Flow but are depending of translators' practices. Having such redirects must be discussed with translators.
If you think mediawiki should automatically create these redirects, that will need a particular development for Extension:Translate, which is not the current topic.
Both examples have nothing to with translators practices, but the usefulness of the discussions of the content. Flow is currently preventing the redirect of such pages, that's why Flow is involved. And regardless of the examples, it should be possible to redirect any talkpage if the owner/stakeholder wants it that way. Flow simply breaks the usual Wikipedia practises, again.
Those redirects should be decided by the content owners/stakeholders of the translated pages, not by the translators, at least at last. It should be discussed as a policy or such within the concerned community. Of course are translators normal editors as well, and will sometimes decide such stuff on their own, like I did then, but in general it's not something to be dealt with with translators only.
You know your attitude is just harassment? Anything I'll say about Flow will be challenged by you, just because you don't like that product. That's not constructive at all, and possibly reprehensible regarding Mediawiki.org Code of Conduct or other Meta policies.
Having a discussion about redirects with translators to define if that is a good idea is a constructive suggestion about how to improve the current workflow. It has nothing to do with Flow.
So please stop you attitude and change your behavior : redirects will be soon handled by Flow and the current discussion is definitely turned to be off-topic and not constructive.
It's harassment to show the clear disabilities of Flow on the Flow talk page? That's a strange concept of harassment.
Again: The possibility, to redirect any talk page anywhere else should be in the hands of those, who have the legitimate say about this talk pages, id est the user with a bot on his bots talk page, the content stakeholder of a translated page for all those translated subpages and so forth.
Currently Flow prevents this, as is mentioned in the phab ticket. I only came by this problem, as I wanted to redirect a discussion page of a translated page to the right and only discussion page about the content, and was prohibited to do so by Flow.
Whether or not the different sub-pages that are created by a translation should be all redirected to the one and only original talk page (probably useful in most cases), of if in certain cases there should be language segregated discussion pages, one for each language, or bundled in close ones (/bay and /als should always be redirected to /de on meta pages like here), should be decided on a by-case base by the content stakeholders, not the translators.
I perfectly accept critiques about Flow and I'm the first one to discuss about its weaknesses.
What I don't accept is your conflict attitude and the fact that you challenge every comment I can make just because you don't like the product I'm working on. Your non-stopping critiques and your derogatory comments concerning my work here on on Meta are clearly harassment.
I've reported your attitude.
Sorry about that, but it's a kind of afterpains the WMF inflicted on the community with their hostile and vile behaviour with MV/Superputsch, that used nearly all good faith towards WMF pet projects. It's definitely nothing against you in person, just the community harassing actions, for what still a sincere apology is missing, by the WMFers.
Imho Flow is just the next bling thing some people at the WMF want to introduce against the communities as a pet project, the same as with the completely botched VE, first take, that still has a considerable amount of people miffed, because despite lots of valid input the WMF forced it on the projects in a stadium, it was plain destructive and not even remotely ready for testing in the wild. And with the implementation against the explicit consensus of 3 projects of a futile bling-thing MediaViewer, just for the vain of Florice, to get the first mayor project done, despite its disregard for proper mentioning of licenses, lots of other problems, and not even the the tiny step from opt-out to opt-in was possible against the brutal might of superprotect. Then there were a bit minor things like was Gather and UserProfiles, and now there is Flow, the next pet project of the WMF. Why should anyone expect good faith by those who have acted so much against the community in the past with similar stuff?
As I said, it's not against you in person, I don't know you enough for that, it's against the attitude of the WMF towards the community, that was destroyed by actions of the WMF in the not so distant past. And it's moving further and further in seemingly similar directions and similar disasters, without an apology towards the community for this mean hostility.
First small sign of recognition of the communities will was the stoppage of Flow by Lila, suddenly the communities were listened to. And superputsch was ditched, even in a far too silent manner, without an apology for this declaration of war without a reason. And now I see this survey, that looks very much like Flow was not so ditched at all, that it was perhaps just the next deception, and the WMF secretly developed it further. Are you really surprised, that this gets such a reaction?
P.S.: VE is now absolutely OK, and I voted for allowing IPs to use it in the deWP, it was just pre-alpha when it was first forced upon the communities as compulsory. Perhaps Flow will one day in the far future, if all those promises about flexibility thousands of use cases will really become true, be useful as well, or it could be introduced as a page besides normal, flexible talk pages, but as it is it's not suited for prime time.
But I'd prefer a bit more good old maintenance instead of just looking for the next bling.
False apologies help nothing, it's even worse when cushioned with "You started it." You say, "Sorry about that, but it's a kind of afterpains the WMF inflicted on the community with their hostile and vile behaviour with MV/Superputsch, that used nearly all good faith towards WMF pet projects."
No, Sänger, your improper language and aggression towards WMF staff occurred months before Superprotect, specifically towards me. You even used the same fake apology and said I'm probably not a bad person, but the WMF is asking for it, and that was a two years ago. You cannot excuse your horrible attitude and your harassment of people for things that you do not like. You need to walk away from the keyboard, go look in the mirror, and remember that you're talking to other human beings. Until then, don't talk about directly to anyone anymore.
My first post here was about exact this MV/Superprotect disaster, and how the arrogant, brutal and hostile WMF tried to subjugate the communities to their will. It was about half an hour after superprotect, this declaration of absolute war against the community, and I perhaps didn't knew then about this extreme measure, but it was already clear, that they didn't intend to listen to any feedback that didn't support their biased and distorted mindset.
Humpf, that's not working. As I've said, I'll ask the Collaboration team about that.
That task has been updated and is now on the roadmap for that quarter.
I'm now thinking it's up to the latter point. I'm awaiting decision on task T102300 because I don't know where this is heading...