Talk:Structured Discussions/Deprecation

We welcome all questions regarding Structured Discussions's deprecation process, in any language.

Convenient

IMO DiscussionTools should just be replaced with an integration of ConvenientDiscussions instead /hj Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also look at the functionality table and see that almost everything is implemented in CD xD Iniquity (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to do so, on your account. :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's already done :) Here we are more talking about the fact that some editorial functionality that will be implemented in DT in a few years can already be used in CD. And as part of the transition from Flow/LT, this will make life easier for many: moving topics, editing messages, deleting messages, and more. That is, as one of the arguments for switching to DT, you can use the fact that if something happens, DT can be replaced with CD if some extra functionality is needed. Iniquity (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if Convenient Discussions is so important, and this shows it is, it should be enable-able via, and have the prominence of, a checkbox in Preferences. And the claim that DiscussionTools provides the vast majority of features Structured Discussions offer isn't even close to not misleading without CD. --RudolfoMD (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Template and category for deprecation

I have created {{HadFlow }} and Discussion pages migrated away from Flow . You can use this template after moving 'flow' page in archive. Example: User talk:Iniquity. Iniquity (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note about the clarity of reasons given for archiving structured discussions

I was just having a chat with a contributor, she has the impression that WMF is strongly pushing for Flow to be abandoned (nobody uses "Structured Discussions" ; it's just more noise). You can't say that's not true, but that's not really the point. The contributor has the impression that Flow discussions will be lost ("why are they pushing people to do it as soon as possible, and we've had so much breakage recently").

She also reminded me of a technical limitation I'd forgotten about. How is the thread size limit set? Is it the size of the page that is limited or is there a sub-limit? The contributor seems to indicate that it happens not infrequently that DiscussionsTools tells her that the discussion is too large.

The 2019 Talk pages consultation was a success that cannot be denied. I sincerely believe that you should take the time before burying Flow to reassure its users. Yes, the problem now is to satisfy the needs of those convinced by Flow who are not yet convinced by DiscussionTools. Those who only use wikitext have no worries, as DiscussionTools is an add-on. I think that this means confirming that the discussions will not be lost and specifying the functions that are still planned for DiscussionTools. Lofhi (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well @Lofhi, it is true: we will abandon Flow. And I confirm that we will convert its contents to wikitext (as much as we can of course, non one can promise a 100% success).

At the moment, I'm working on the report of the communities conversations I conducted. 26 different conversations were conducted. Some communities started working with me on documenting the change and opening the conversations to larger audiences. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case everywhere. The 2019 Talk pages consultation was on the same pattern: it was a success at your wiki as you helped (thank you again). But at other wikis, it wasn't that good.

Flow contents won't be lost. We will come back to communities later in 2024 to present how we can convert existing Flow boards into wikitext (everyone who replied wants wikitext). This conversion wasn't well conducted for French Wikipedia users, and I took the initial feedback to improve the communication material.

I'll check on the technical limitation you mention. Knowing on which talk pages this happen would help though.

I'm working on the report now. The less detailed part is "what I liked in Flow", as people told me that they prefer Flow, but they forgot to explained why when invited to. I'm taking whatever they'd like to share, if you can help, pelase do! :)

Thank you, Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

> I'll check on the technical limitation you mention. Knowing on which talk pages this happen would help though.
I would also intresting in this information :) Iniquity (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Konkani Wikipedia

I have started a discussion about deprecating Structured Discussions on the Konkani Wikipedia, where Structured Discussions is the standard content model for all talk pages. The Discoverer (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fatal exception of type 'Flow\Exception\InvalidDataException'"

I had the Structured Discussions beta enabled on my Wikidata talk page and attempted to disable it in my Wikidata preferences upon seeing that it is being deprecated but seem to have broken something. I now see the error:

The Structured Discussions workflow is not associated with this page.

[9a2892fd-32e3-4536-a174-37a85066dedc] 2024-10-04 18:16:13: Fatal exception of type "Flow\Exception\InvalidDataException

I am unable to view the talk page history or make any changes. Infopetal (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is phab:T371769, which has been sporadically happening for a while. There's a script someone with sysadmin access (which I don't have) can run to fix it. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 23:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Pppery! Do you have any sense as to the best way to get the attention of someone with sysadmin access who can run the script? --Infopetal (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that nobody took initiative in response to this post - I would have expected the teams involved with Flow to be watching. I've filed T377360, hopefully that will cajole someone to take action. If not then I guess I will have to list it for a backport window, but it hopefully won't come to that, and I have lots of other stuff competing for backport window slots. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Infopetal, thank you for reporting the issue (and thanks @Pppery for creating the task)! I ran the script Pppery mentioned, and your Wikidata talk page should now be working again. Let me know if it doesn't! Best regards, Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Martin Urbanec (WMF) and @Pppery! --Infopetal (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Big concnern

It looks like everything done with flow will get archived, and then maybe, one day, when there's spare effort available, perhaps, if by then WMF doesn't judge these archived pages no longer relevant, they will be converted to wiki syntax.

I mean, going by history, Parsoid, visual editor, making apostrophes part of the link alphabet (20 years?) it's unlikely that the later stages will ever be done.

Rich Farmbrough 10:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC).

The flow has various serious issues, and I don't see why the Flow will not be undeployed and converted to wikitext by the WMF. It's just a matter of time, and I believe it will be done in the next year, according to the deprecation timetable. Apologies if I misunderstood your words. SCP-2000 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)