RationalWiki talk:LiquidThreads

Let me handle this please. -- Nx / talk 09:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

People have questions and you are busy. ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing a FAQ right now. You're just slowing me down with this. -- Nx / talk 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

The archiving bit is the thing that bothers me. I occasionally like to flick through the old archives, especially on WIGOCP Talk to remember the old days of June 2008 and Operation Farting Duck or whatever. How is that possible using liquid threads? - π 13:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to click next page until you get to the part you want - or you can just manually type in a timestamp for the offset, like this: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nx&offset=20110101230058&limit=20

So this is actually easier to do with LQT, except it's not exposed in the user interface, but you could write a gadget that allows you to enter a date and jump to that page. -- Nx / talk 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Hmm, that makes for some interesting possibilities. A thought I just had was we could make dpl listings of threads created in a month. I guess we can find work arounds. - π 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, dpl can interact with LQT, since LQT comments are like normal pages. For example, you can probably get a list of comments created in january, but I don't know how well that'll work. Anyway, you can also use the newest threads first sorting order and offset to get almost what you want. -- Nx / talk 13:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The offset parameter here means: show all threads that have a "last comment date" earlier than 2011-01-01 23:00:58, because the default sorting order is "last modified first". By "last comment date" I mean the date of the newest comment in that thread. If you change the sorting order the meaning of the offset parameter changes accordingly. -- Nx / talk 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me since I'm not very technical, but wouldn't the max 20 page thing (with a manual workaround that I'm having trouble following) quickly become a problem on fast-moving pages like WiGO CP or the Saloon Bar? Seems a bit odd to have a default max that you can't change though, is that something that's actively being worked on? --Kels (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We currently have a similar limit for the saloon bar and TWIGO CP, except it's not an exact number because it depends on Pibot. However, when Pibot archives something, you have to unarchive it to continue the conversation. With LQT you can just reply and it'll get bumped up to the first page. Also, it is possible to choose a limit, for example (note the limit=5 in the url)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nx&limit=5

This means that I can add a dropdown box in the TOC to allow you to select a limit (in fact anyone who knows a bit of javascript could write a gadget to do it right now) for that page. Adding a user preference is also pretty trivial.

Now, AFAIK they're planning to replace pagination with infinite scrolling, like how twitter works, i.e. once you get to the end, you have to click "Show more" and it'll load a couple more threads. I'm not sure this is such a great idea though. -- Nx / talk 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Given I don't think much of how Twitter is set up (wanna find something from a year ago? good luck!!), I'd tend to agree. I've pretty much given in as far as individual talk pages are concerned, although I don't see it as nearly the godsend some folks seem to think. At this point, I'm more worried about it scaling into a monstrosity if it goes into wide use. --Kels (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that necro-threading will be easier is good - rather than copy-pasting out of an archive or starting again from scratch. However, I don't think anyone currently has an LQT page long enough to really see how that would work here. Implementation of LQT on the SB or TWIGO:CP (which IMO should happen at some time purely for size and database reasons) would change those pages into something more like a forum (See here if people have forgotten what they look like :P) which would change the dynamic of the conversation slightly. Currently we're used to things sort of rolling into each other, but separating things out more formally into threads would give it an entirely different feel. It's something that I don't think we can quite predict. ^gnostic 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with talk pages on that score, Human's right that it's gonna get steamrolled through no matter what anyway. It's more the effect of wide use, in this case how easy (or not) accessing "archives" of the busy talk pages will be. Better to be aware of actual faults and potential problems at an early stage than the play catchup later, yes? --Kels (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't foresee archives being any more problematic than they already are. PiBot moves them to sub pages and you have to search through them manually to get to them, with LQT they're paged off and there is no "archive", just more pages. How those pages are indexed and viewed, of course, is something I'd like to look into in more detail; perhaps we can add something akin to #tags to the threads, which is something I think would be incredibly useful for searching and archiving purposes but something that could only be done with LQT. SB and TWIGO:CP posts already go through quite quickly. If anything, I feel it would extend the lifespan of those threads as once they've been archived in the usual way they're totally out-of-sight-out-of-mind, whereas with the pagination they would trickle off the bottom more slowly, with the popular ones continually bumped. I do suppose that the bumping would alter the dynamics, but as a long term forum user I've never seen it as an issue. I agree there are some bugs, but nothing that can't be ironed out. For instance, your mention (elsewhere) of the new messages number being an amorphous mass (or words to that effect, I forget what they were) indicated that the number of "new messages" should be the number of threads replied to, rather than number of posts. Perhaps, I'll bring it up with Nx at some point to see if we can optimise the page as there are also some presentational issues between using the special:newmessages and going to the talk page - i.e., I got confused about what page was what because they start to blur together like that. Nothing that I think can't be ironed out through a few tweaks and generally getting used to the system, however. I disagree that it will be steam-rolled in, I was mostly joking when I said to do it "Facebook style" (for which I do apologise) but I think it has to be an inevitable step. Consider that for every edit to the SB the database saves a copy of the entire page. That's a lot of data and just isn't sustainable for the level of conversational traffic RW generates these days. ^gnostic 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is that when browsing old threads you can only go back and forward through potentially hundreds of pages. The solution in the next section seems like it would be pretty easy to implement. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution to that is in the second post of this thread. -- Nx / talk 07:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The manual workaround is over my head. Is "20110101230058" supposed to be a date?

What I'm talking about is if you are just browsing/searching you only get 12 threads per page (on Nx' talkpage). What if you don't know the date that accurately? If you could have a very long list of just the "Contents" thread links, you could browse it like we do Recent Changes or the Watchlist, plus you have more sorting options and it saves "bandwidth" because you would only display the threads you click on. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Table of contents for the archives

Could you have a page with just a list of links to the entire "archive" (all pages)? The links would look just like they do now for the Contents that are on the page (example). ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was sort of thinking something along those lines. I might sandbox it up for my talkpage when I get the time. - π 01:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Some magical wiki markup we could copy to other pages? Page/archive contents list would seem like something we should use on any LQT page with lots of pages/archives. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain this more clearly: If the wizards can make a page that has only the LQT Contents list, with no actual threads below, then the page would have room for a very long list of Contents (say 1000 threads). Then have all the Contents page numbers listed somehow (each page is 1000 threads). LQT currently has a dropdown list for sorting: "last modified first", "newest threads first", and "oldest threads first". All this would make archives easy to browse because there would be so many more threads per page, so many less pages, and you could get to any page with one click.

Other features may be more difficult like instead of just having page numbers to click, maybe you have date ranges to click, which would have to change when the "Sorting order" is changed. Nx suggested something where you type in the date; same idea. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Difflinks

Can they be done (forgive me I have only read a bit of this so far)? This also sort of relates to Piguy's comment above about archives. ħuman 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I guess it was totally worth my time to write a FAQ answering this question in detail if you can't even be fucking bothered to read it. -- Nx / talk 07:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial posts by non-autopatrolled users

How does one mark these as patrolled, manually, that is. I looked in the "More" dropdown but didn't see anything. C®ackeЯ 05:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, I read more

Hard drive space is free today. Want 300G? Cost of postage. Many other "pro"s seem like geek speak, not user-friendly issues, also a few sound like one user's pet peeves. I see no point in making people learn two ways to navigate/edit a website instead of just one. ħuman 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That kind of reminds me of what some of the CZ guys said about their wiki's space requirements. -- Nx / talk 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard disk space is actually a very limiting resource for us, because of the nature of how virtual hosting works. The primary reason I ultimately support implementing LQT tech on our major talk pages is to keep our database a sane size. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

While disk space is fairly extendible, the ability to search it efficiently drops off and becomes the limiting factor. It's not just a case of storing and archiving but actively accessing and cataloguing everything in there, making sure it meshes fully with the database. It's considerably more complicated than mere "size". ^gnostic 14:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much that is affected, since old revisions are not indexed. -- Nx / talk 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I assure you guys that disk space is very much a limited quantity until we move into much more expensive hosting options in the dedicated server department. It it is something I am actively interested in keeping under control. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It almost sounded like Human was offering to get you a 300GiB harddisk, for the cost of shipping. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol at Lumenos, funny thing is I have a "spare" SATA 300G hard drive I'm not using... at Trent, point taken. Strange that HDD space is such a premium, but it's the nature of the beast, I guess? ħuman 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in the good ole' days you could go to Staples and trade in 10 Cannon ink carts a month for three months and put 90 bucks toward a 1TB USB disk with a regular SATA drive inside (about $110-$120 then). Now they dropped the trade in value from $3 to $2 per cart. These are quite cheap cartridges because they are for the older printers and lack the print head and PUO electronics. They are also the kind you can refill with a syringe (or in bulk with a vacuum). Always check Ebay to buy a coupon. (Just some tips for your tip jar.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AJAX

I stopped using it decades ago in favor of Bon Ami. What on earth is an "Ajax interface" and why does it matter? Please explain to those who do not use abrasive cleaners. ħuman 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Those who can read and not just bitch and moan, will notice that it also says:

"avoids unnecessary page loads for posting and editing threads, and other functions, making the experience smoother and faster."

-- Nx / talk 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Those who understand and do not make every response a personal attack might explain how "ajax" means the latter. ħuman 03:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If your every comment is a personal attack, then what do you expect? -- Nx / talk 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AJAX interface means all the content is not loaded at the same time, you can choose to load more if you want to read more by clicking the "show more replies" button. Blue (pester) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Incompatibility with old talk pages

What does that even mean? -- Nx / talk 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you use both on the same page, the edit button is pretty difficult to find and it goes to the bottom of the page. The "Add topic" adds a liquid thread instead of a section IIRC. Would you say they both could be used on the same page?

Secondly, you claim you could write a script to convert LQT to regular talkpage, but most of us don't know how to do that. Having a free license doesn't do much good if there are technological barriers to copying. How am I to fork off, every time I am told to? : ) ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to use both? -- Nx / talk 09:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm explaining in what way they are incompatible. Since you don't disagree I will rewrite Human's edit. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, one reason to use both would be just to keep everyone happy. If some old MediaWikian comes around and expects things to work the old way, they could edit the page the old fashioned way. The software instead trains us to use the new system. I suppose the change is good. Now that I think about it, perhaps these issues are not significant enough to mention. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's still retarded. How about we wait for Human to actually explain what he meant instead? -- Nx / talk 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought of a better a reason to have both on one page. Some pages that we use like articles may benefit from having LQT at the bottom, while the edit button functions as it used to. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why you have a content namespace and an associated discussion namespace. -- Nx / talk 14:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not an answer. We are talking about managing discussion namespace pages here, not content pages. ħuman 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an edit button, it's just not where the other tabs are. It would be relatively simple to put it there using a gadget, I think, if people want to. Blue (is useful) 05:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem the reason it is not there is so that people will create a LQT thread instead of editing the header like it is an oldschool talkpage. But that should be fairly obvious on pages where all the old talk has been archived. Having the "Add topic" tab create a new thread, makes sense. It would have been a good idea to leave the edit button, but since that probably won't be the way it is on other wikis like WP, I think we should just go with the program rather than have a unique way. Then again if both edit buttons are there, it won't matter, except when our editors go to edit at WP they may not know where the button is. ~ Lumenos (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean you wouldn't ever want to do that here. This would probably be more likely at Lumeniki but I think it might inspire more editing if people could comment on articles like they do on blogs or YouTube videos. It would be a unique feature of a wiki. People are more likely to read something if they are welcome to comment on it. I know they can comment on the talkpage but when an article is just like a bunch of comments (not very developed) I think many of these would be better in the LQT format. It seems articles are a lot less edited here, than talkpages.

There also may be some sort of project space page where this would be desirable. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In this scenario, the header is not a talk page. So what are we talking about? -- Nx / talk 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Currently the "header" can be just like an old "talkpage", "project page", or "article". My talkpage is currently a hybrid. I could put the well important informations in the "header" and leave the talk talk talk for those who prefer LQT. : ) ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Learning curve

"Some active users of previous MediaWiki installations have complained that LiquidThreads are difficult to learn."

I think this is outweighed by the number of advantages for those new to MediaWiki. C'mon, it is not that hard. It is really easier than the old way. Maybe most new editors would be familiar with Wikipedia but it seems likely LiquidThreads will be implemented there before long. "The original code was developed under sponsorship from [...] Wikia. It is close to completion, and being worked on by Andrew Garrett under contract with the Wikimedia Foundation. It is currently being tested and used on some Wikimedia wikis and may eventually be deployed on all Wikimedia sites."[1] ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you meant it ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember someone earlier saying LQT was "alpha software". Is that not the case? --Kels (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is beta. [2] I reported a bizarre "bug" in edit history. LQT is highly suspect as the cause... unless Nx is after me lolcow utters. That is, I can not always tell if he is serious business or if he'd be one to make my edit history look that way as a joke. ~ Lumenos (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Script requirements and moving stuff

I'm thinking of adding the following to the disadvantages but I'm not entirely certain of this:

LiquidThreads do not use the same wiki markup so editors have less control over somethings. Scripts are required to rearrange threads on a page. (Scripts can be a security risk.) More than one post cannot easily be copied to another wiki (although some consider this an advantage).

~ Lumenos (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The lack of a non-js fallback for moving comments is temporary. It should be possible to use Special:Export and Special:Import to copy comments to another wiki, provided that wiki uses LQT as well. -- Nx / talk 10:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Most wikifarms don't use LQT I'd imagine and to export you must have to list a page for every thread. Before we only had to worry about the talk page and how ever many archives. There is probably some export software that |337s use but me too stoopid. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I forgot about backups. I often copy pages to a text editor and save it locally as a backup. Now I'm probably only gonna save my comments. If RW goes out of service, all my work goes with it. Having my own comments without the context is no good. Keeping track of any LQT page thread I edit, and creating exports of every page, is much more work. This makes personal backups far more difficult unless you have some magic software. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We have content dumps. -- Nx / talk 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure y'all have RationalWiki:Content_dumps. With a regular talkpage I can simply cut and paste the page to a text document every time I post. This is a MAJOR learning curve issue at least. It is not obvious to me whether one needs "direct server access", or if this is something I could use if I knew how. I'd appreciate if you would explained this to me, but this is definitely a disadvantage for anyone who doesn't know how to use this software and probably less convenient for those who do. Backups are not just for computer/service failures/discontinuations, but for seeing whether there were any sneaky alterations to edit histories. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden criticism

The following information has been deleted from the article so I put it at User_talk:Lumenos/RationalWiki:LiquidThreads. Then I was "blocked" for "testing" this software, apparently by user:Gooniepunk. (Note as a result of testing I have reproduced a bug three times, where it looses posts (although you can click back and find them).) I put a backup of this information, offsite at http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/EmphaticWiki#LiquidThreads so that it cannot be simply deleted without what would appear to me to be a valid reason. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Limitations on editors

[Moved back to User_talk:Lumenos/RationalWiki:LiquidThreads ]

• Scripts are required to rearrange threads on a page. (Scripts can be a security risk. Nx promises to make it work without scripts.)

~ Lumenos (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How does the internet look without scripts? I can think of several places that would bork upon entry. Blue (pester) 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid places requiring them. Nx can apparently do everything without scripts probably including getting into my dirty diapers, so I'm not sure it really matters, but I'm pretty sure there are many more exploits possible when scripts and plug-ins are enabled. However for anonymity, disabling scripts through Tor is recommended by EFF to make for a less unique browser fingerprint. ~ Lumenos (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't even make sense. So, you only view HTML 4.0 sites? No ajax, no JS, no php, no... well, anything dynamic? How are you even seeing this? Are you just that bad at avoiding sites with scripts? Quaru^{Xbox One - You can't explain that!} 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain to you, young man, what a script is. It is a thing that I am not using when I uncheck the little box in my web browser preferences. This makes me virtually invincible unless there be goblins. Maybe it is rightly called javascript? I don't understand what the risks are or why they don't make it more of a priority, particularly with Windows. I might explain it that, it keeps people dependent on MS for updates. They can't make people pay for the OS (except by bundling with the least expensive new hardware) but they could make people pay for updates if they want a more "secure" computer. Doesn't it seem bizarre putting any effort into flashy crap when there are all these holes and complexity that noone understands? Malware and great bot nets of zombie computers? How do we stop this madness? ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I don't understand what a script is when you redefine it to just refer to JavaScript. Let me explain to you, young man. This entire site is a script. The php for this site has to be continually checked, so that a hole in the coding cannot be exploited. I had a php based site of mine hacked a few months ago, since you are correct, scripts are security holes. (It was minor, took moments to fix/repair) But you cannot avoid them. All of "Web 2.0" is a script. But, I guess most of your arguments comes down to you redefining terms until you're right, so this should be no surprise. If you cannot properly use the terms as commonly understood, then just stop. You make yourself sound like a tool. Quaru^{Xbox One - You can't explain that!} 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Bangarang, Rufio! ^gnostic 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well by ignorantly using the term improperly, I learned how to use it properly. Going to a foreign country is one way to learn a language, but it might annoy the locals. I will try to be more careful. Of course I am willing to use a more accurate term when I am aware of one.

Thank you for providing more clues on how difficult it is secure a mediawiki. Of course we could avoid them. As a result of this revelation, I am considering more "primitive" wikis, forums, or other free collaborate web services. How shall I repay you? You like organic peanut butter? Hmmm it won't fit in the USB port. I have these funnies... but I can rarely hear anyone smirking but me. Should I express appreciation? It feels a little bit gay. Wouldn't they know when they have written something helpful? Oh wait! You have a malfunction in your lumenator, which I may repair if you are so willing to learn as I am.

"I guess most of your arguments comes [sic] down to you redefining terms until you're right" You now speak the Truthism, Sir. That is indeed what you have "guessed". Whether you have guessed correctly about "most of my arguments", is a more complicated issue. Here we have a clearly accurate term ("javascript") which is a proper replacement for my erroneous use of the term "scripts". Likewise, it seems the lumenati language has a number of clearly accurate terms that should replace terms that are commonly used ambiguously. Should you wish to name an argument that uses some erroneous circular reasoning, I will probably make a reply in the location of the argument you reference. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon further research...

I have examined what LQT is and approve its use here. It's gonna suck for us old-timers, the learning curve is going to be hard - the talk pages will work well, but how will they incorporate the past? Can we run an engine to "rewrite" a talk page using the old diff edits to build an LQT version that is complete? Learning how to use my watchlist to keep track of things will change, I guess, too. But for the newer and younger users it will be easy. C'est la vie. My only "complaint" is how the concept was introduced to RW - finally we have a page that describes what it is, instead of just some geek telling us "we need this". Do I have to sign? Fuck.

Keeping in mind, of course, that you're still going to need to know wiki markup if you plan to edit actual content pages. I haven't heard anyone say anything about changing those, at least. --Kels (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

LQT comments still use the same wiki markup. And how many times do you use indentation and sigs on content pages? -- Nx / talk 08:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can use a single LQT post with sections, colon indentation, signatures, etc, but how often will anyone do that? It will probably become customary not to edit "someone else's" post, to add a comment, unless people who prefer the old system, announce that their post is for others to comment in, in the style of the old talkpage. ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

They could leave the archive links and label them as "pre-Feb 2011". Those archive links should probably (also) go at the bottom of the page, near to the page navigation so all the "history" links are close together. (The best I could do was to lable the archives "old fashioned" and put them at the top and bottom of the old-style talkpage.)

Converting from LQT to regular talkpage probably wouldn't have problems, but going the other way might. If someone converts them to LQT, they can't reproduce subsections, so I suppose any subsections will be converted to their own thread, which could be confusing. Sometimes I put footnotes on talk pages, so I don't know if those would be reproduced in a separate thread. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You can actually put an entire talkpage into a single LQT post, or you could put only the sections with subsections into a LQT post. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Disk space

(Trent expressed concerns about diskspace earlier [3][4]. LQT conserves diskspace.)

I did a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation regarding how the entire page is saved in the database for each edit. Based on a roughly average SB size of 100 kb at any one time and 70 or so edits a day (having a quick look at the revision history) the SB would generate 2.5 gigabytes of data a year. But given that the average edit adds only 400 bytes of data, there is only 10 megabytes of information. Considering over half of RW's edits are talk and could use LQT, that's quite an efficiency saving we could have. ^gnostic 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What about using a compressed filesystem (maybe only for high-activity talk pages if this puts too much load on the cpu/harddisk and slows things down)?

Isn't it likely that the MediaWiki developers will implement some "compression" for all that redundancy? It seems likely this is only a temporary problem. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How close are we to meltdown?

How much space is left on the disks you are using now and what is the fill rate? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Auto-merging to prevent edit conflicts

It seems possible to auto-merge articles and regular talkpages, to prevent edit conflicts. (I could have swore the SB was doing that already.) This could be done with an alert in case two interdependent parts are changed at the same time, especially for articles. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How to find deleted posts?

How do I find a deleted post? I looked in the thread history and I can see the deletion comment "00:49, 15 January 2011 Lumenos (Talk | contribs | block) Deleted (Author request: content didn't look right)". When I click there I go to here which tells me nothing about where the deleted post is. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

High volume talk pages

Hmm, earlier I'd expressed reservations about what happens when this gets implemented on a fairly high traffic page or lively conversation with a lot of posts. I think I got a preview here, where I noticed an interesting edit comment and was curious what it was about. However, since I'm not subscribed to that page (as new users would not be to most pages, or for with people who have auto-subscribe turned off), LQT did not show me the most recent. It just showed me the root posts, leaving the rest buried. It took me 8 clicks to get to the current posts, including one blind alley, and a bit of hunting for the "more replies" ink in a couple of cases. I suspect that it might be a bit offputting to casual users or new users (especially ones not used to LQT elsewhere). As with most things, there's probably a way to deal with it, but I think that should be done before spreading to other similar pages. --Kels (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got my LTQ limits set to 99 and have been deliberately ignoring Lumpy's trolling, but it illustrates the point I've made about long threads in the past.

Here's an idea: Could Nx or Pi or one of the other couple of dedicated LQTers maintain a parallel thread for a few days? Pick a topic (ideally, ALL topics) on the bar, or WIGO:CP and mirror the comments on an LQT-version page? Screw the who-said-what-when aspect - they'll be deleted later. Just to see what happens with a typical, sprawling thread. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly hate speech directed at my sexual orientation. Do you realize your kind have put me through genocide stages 1-5 (skipping 4)?

Be very cautious Kels. Wandering around these parts asking curious questions can have dire consequences. Perhaps this feature is by design (see 1st priority). ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Turning off e-mail notification

Is there a way to turn off e-mail notification after someone posts to liquidthreads? I'm not a fan of it, which I see as redundant and cluttering of my inbox. sterile^talk 17:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just uncheck "E-mail me on replies to a thread I am watching". You may need to uncheck "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" as well, I don't know exactly which option does what. -- Nx / talk 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have that option under my preferences or on the liquidthreads on my talk page, or maybe I don't see it. sterile^talk 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it. sterile^talk 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it still sends an e-mail for a new thread. Does it have to? sterile^talk 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get any emails. Did you uncheck both options? -- Nx / talk 19:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird. sterile^talk 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)