I don't think there's much issue with copying the content of the old pages over and just making it clear that X.css has the old history.
Reading a bit more now, but a lot of the CSS porting has been simple in my experience, so correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like it will be much smaller of an issue than you're all making it out to be. Why not deal with this surge of intractable CSS requests when it actually comes and not cry wolf now?
People really out here threatening (again) to quit and join the animated foot scene wiki host because they can't be bothered to change some class names in the 5000 lines of css they wrote for a website called Fandom
mediawiki file editors general strike of 2021 🤯
You could use the MarkBlocked script.
That may be true of some websites, but Discussions is pretty limited in scope so the minimalist layout it has currently works perfectly well for causal browsing/posting. Arguably, it's much more user-friendly for newbies versus Forums, which has a more unusual structure. Of course, Discussions is inefficient for some use-cases like quickly clearing spam or viewing long threads, but the problem isn't that it's mobile-centered, and certainly not that it has "huge gutters" (which are actually about the same size as Oasis and most other websites). Hell, even MediaWiki's new Timeless skin has those same gutters, because they allow for easier scanning and reading like a book vs a long banner.
The problem isn't that Discussions was designed to be simple on mobile devices, it's that Discussions isn't fully-featured enough to accomodate powerusers/large-scale moderation. Digressing, a "long-term MediaWiki solution" is neither viable nor is it necessary to resolve those problems.
It was just a well-known example of a communications platform somewhat similar to Discussions with a more mobile-oriented layout. I admit the desktop website has its flaws, but my point is that more spacing does not equal a layout that's difficult to use on desktop and that Discussions is actually an improvement over Forums for casual users. That being said, the moderation is inefficient and I agree with Kocka that that could be improved.
A content dense website with layers upon layers of navigation is obviously a very different situation from basic communication. Your initial gripe with Discussions was that it had too much extra space, but in the example you give the issue is that the website is burying its excess forms and pages. If anything, Discussions is the polar opposite.
It's nothing worse than say, the new Twitter design. It's better to have a minimalistic design that has some empty space to expand into than a cluttered design that's difficult to use.
Again, while it might be a while before a stable MediaWiki discussion feature is developed that sees widespread adoption I don't think forking MediaWiki again and creating something janked like Forums that bogs down efforts to update the software for the next decade is a good idea.
Well the MediaWiki solution was Forums, & it's become obsolete and buggy. If anyone wants to make "a long term viable MediaWiki solution", I'd rather it'd be the MediaWiki devs instead of Fandom forking things again to leave us with a platform that's 10 years out of date.
Honestly speaking, I opposed Discussions when it first came out but it's becoming a more and more viable replacement for Forums as a basic social and communicative platform. It's not really "desktop-unfriendly" anymore, unless you count something being too simple & easy to use as meaning it's unsuitable for PC.
Also, I think it is actually possible to use ?action=delete on Board Thread urls, though strangely not their message wall analogues.
Will threads that have been suppress-deleted, with edit history hidden from admins, going to be migrated
For clarification, threads deleted with ?action=delete will not be migrated over, correct?
I think having all the hearts on there makes it feel a lot more friendly & not as toxic :)
That's weird, can you link the diff?
or you could just set expiryDays to something much higher, like a few years
I wouldn't say that's the sole purpose it serves in practice, though.
It's true that people have been complaining about it a long time, but the Community Builder experiment showed building a new editing system wasn't worthwhile & was at least slightly connected with the quick shift to upgrading MediaWiki imo.
Revan's Exile wrote:
RickGT wrote: Regardless of the outcome, it sounds like the experiment was a success, and that you guys received some important feedback on it. With the new MW upgrade looming ahead, I'm sure there will be the opportunity for more new and exciting experiments and tests in the future.
The experiment was an abject failure that only succeeded in proving the people behind it are gargantuan idiots.
You're right that it didn't achieve the improvements that were hoped for, but it was a success in the sense that FANDOM gained insights about what didn't work and what would be a better way to improve the editing experience, hence the coming mediawiki upgrade. Even if the hypothesis is proven wrong, that's still an important lesson learned.