Proof that LQT truly sucks

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proof that LQT truly sucks

I came here from my watchlist, but I can't figure out which of these stupid threads caught my attention. LQT simply sucks. I don't care who likes it, it is a very poor way to interact with the mediawiki software. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ħumanUser talk:Human08:44, 18 April 2011

See the Human my talk my references etc. in the top right hand corner? When someone comments in a thread you are watching, a number will show up. If you click that, it will go to that thread and highlight the new message.

ТyTalk.12:56, 18 April 2011

No, Human uses the watchlist and there's a blue box on the top of the watchlist if there are new messages, and that annoys Human.

Ponder Stibbons (talk)16:56, 18 April 2011

Ah, I never use the watch list, young Stibbons. Does it cause FTB errors?

ТyTalk.16:58, 18 April 2011
 

HUMAN SMAAAAASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ADK...I'll earn your lemon!08:01, 20 April 2011

People who use LQT are simply obtuse. People who defend its use are really into bad technology. The fact that it simply does not interface with MW properly is a disaster. PS, eat something bitter and spiny, Ty, you are really lame. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

ħumanUser talk:Human03:35, 13 May 2011

Suggestions?

ТyTalk.03:36, 13 May 2011

Return page to MW format? If it is even possible? And if it isn't, so much the worse for LQT - no backwards or forwards compatibility makes for REALLY BAD software. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ħumanUser talk:Human04:46, 15 May 2011

I was referring to spiny bitter things, but yes, it is possible: you move the liquid threads code to an archive page. The threads then move there.

ТyTalk.05:17, 15 May 2011
 
 

Plus I can't manually patrol these...unless you tell me how? 03:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it fux up RCs
C®ackeЯ03:36, 13 May 2011
ТyTalk.03:41, 13 May 2011

Oh okay...so I just add 2k of code to the wiki do be able to do something I didn't need the code for in the first place? I see. Won

der

ful

03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

C®ackeЯ03:43, 13 May 2011

I know, it's annoying.

ТyTalk.03:44, 13 May 2011

There was a bit of a flap over this earlier. I have said this before, but I think that Liquid Threads violate a number of good design principles, such as the KISS principle, REST, and preference for human-readable storage formats.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX03:47, 13 May 2011

Some people (who shall remain nameless) should love this cause they're also a bitch to external link to.

ТyTalk.03:51, 13 May 2011
 
 
 
 

I think that's done on purpose. Why would you want to patrol talk page comments?

-- Nx / talk03:56, 13 May 2011

Perhaps because they leave annoying red marks all over Recent Changes?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX03:59, 13 May 2011

Really?

89.135.100.67 (talk)04:01, 13 May 2011
 

No, they don't. That's the point. It removes another annoyance. Patroling was designed for articles, as was pretty much everything else in MediaWiki, and makes using MediaWiki as a forum annoying. LQT fixes that.

-- Nx / talk04:03, 13 May 2011

I find these little boxes more annoying. I also prefer getting edit-conflicts, since that way I do not shoot off a post without knowing about other posts that have been made in the meantime.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX04:05, 13 May 2011

Like this?

89.135.100.67 (talk)04:12, 13 May 2011
 

There are saner and more user-friendly ways to do that, e.g. some forums force a "show preview" in case other posts have been made while replying, I'm sure it could be implemented in LQT as well. Besides, LQT already warns you if there are new posts to a thread you're reading, it's at the top of the thread.

-- Nx / talk04:13, 13 May 2011

I think LQT is going to happen the same way voting reform happened in the UK. Let's just give it up.

It's going to happen at WP sooner or later

-- Nx / talk11:01, 13 May 2011

Somehow I don't see that going down well as a reason.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I dunno...they're starting to grow on me. I like how, if one responds to a post way up in the thread, the relationship betwixt the two is seen, as opposed to just another set of :::::::::::'s getting lost in the shuffle. — Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs

C®ackeЯ04:56, 15 May 2011