Proof that LQT truly sucks
HUMAN SMAAAAASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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. ħuman 03:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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. ħuman 04:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Plus I can't manually patrol these...unless you tell me how? 03:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and it fux up RCs
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.