Updates

[NLewis]

Here I am with my monthly (though we use this roughly) updates for IMSLP. These are limited to ideas since Feldmahler is the only person who can program them. However, I was wondering what everyone thought of the the following:

1. I think it would be good idea to install the Mediawiki extension Liquid Thread. Here is the rational:

"Wiki discussion pages have some advantages over web and Usenet forums. They allow use of the entire wiki syntax - from images to wiki links to transclusion. It is possible to refactor entire discussion pages. Web forums offer a number of advantages over the MediaWiki talk page model:

[*]Threads can be displayed in different views: flat, nested, sorted by date, subject, etc.

[*]The user only needs to click a "Reply" button or link in order to respond to a comment. Manual indentation is not required.

[*]Quotations from the source comment can be inserted automatically.

[*]Comments are automatically signed and dated.

[*]Avatars are possible. (but not yet created)

[*]The user can watch individual threads or be notified about responses in threads.

[*]Comments and threads can be displayed individually, without the surrounding page.

[*]Old comments are archived automatically and invisibly, with permanent links easily available.

[*]Search for author, subject, date, etc. is possible

[*]Individual threads can have categories.

[*]It is relatively easy to manage related discussions in a subject-specific forum, whereas MediaWiki talk pages always follow the "one discussion page per subject page" model.

LiquidThreads aims to unite the advantages of both forum types, and to add some unique discussion features to boot."


~ http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads



2. I also thought it would be an interesting idea (If not a good idea) to install the Mediawiki Extension chat feature. It adds a "chat" tab to all the pages and creates a chatroom for that one page. However, where I think it would be useful, is that you can also set it so it will have one chatroom for the entire site.

I would argue this is a much more convenient way to do real-time chat than the current IRC I designed earlier in the year. The intent of the IRC was to discuss things more freely and openly, which would hopefully spur new ideas for the development of IMSLP. So far, this idea hasn't worked for two reasons:

1. Some people who use IMSLP don't even know the IRC exists. Adding the chat feature would solve this problem, hopefully.
2. Many people do not log in for discussion, which is a shame to the original intent. Especially without the administration of the site.

This site does, however, need to be using MySQL as the database in order for this idea to work.



3. Tree And Menu Extension would almost undoubtedly be useful for IMSLP. This essentially adds the ability to render collapsible bullet-lists. This is exactly like Windows "check" and "minus" buttons you see next to folders sometimes. The reason I think this would be so useful is because it would save a lot of space for Sortable Work Lists. Sometimes the only thing taking up all the space is the "notes", "section listing", or "scoring" sections. If we had this extension, we could collapse the tables, making them much easier to get through and find that you need. Here is a link to the extension:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TreeAndMenu

4. Extension:PageInfo might be an interesting idea, and quite convenient. I dare say many will disagree with that though.



What does everyone think? Any repudiations? Suggestions?

Hopefully I will have monthly updates more monthly (Although I understand we want to keep the traditionality of the site, and most proposed updates / improvements will not be this drastic).

Cheers,

Nicholas Lewis

[pml]

If we're up for suggesting Mediawiki extensions, the Special:Interwiki one would be a good one, considering the number of templates we’re designing to link to external libraries. Previously requested by me: linky

Do we really need the LiquidThread level of functionality for talk pages? (*he said in a sceptical tone of voice*) Also, the release status of the extension is “beta” (a new version is in “development”… sometime in 2011. Right).

TreeAndMenu is marked stable on a wide variety of MediaWiki versions including 1.15.0.

Cheers, PML

[NLewis]

If we're up for suggesting Mediawiki extensions, the Special:Interwiki one would be a good one, considering the number of templates we’re designing to link to external libraries. Previously requested by me:

If you can convince Feldmahler this would be a good idea, sure. I support it, though the maintenance cost is what worries me.

Do we really need the LiquidThread level of functionality for talk pages? (*he said in a sceptical tone of voice*) Also, the release status of the extension is “beta” (a new version is in “development”… sometime in 2011. Right).

Why not? It would be easier to archive, organize, and discuss. Yes, you're right, it is in a "beta" state and a new version is in development. However, this is a much improved version from the one that was previously released. I suppose it can only get better, assuming it doesn't follow the declining trend of Microsoft, but I see no reason we shouldn't have it. Perhaps we can think more seriously about the issue after it is out of the beta state, and once Feldmahler offers his ideas.

[KGill]

I have another idea for an improvement (totally unrelated to the above): could the copyright tagger be adjusted to search by year? I imagine this would be pretty useful; at present, you can find out what files are marked as V, C, N, or !N, but if it's N then there's no way to sort by what year it will fall into the PD. It would also be nice to display the total number of tags returned by a search with the tag finder at the top of the page, though that would be less 'useful' per se.

[pml]

If we're up for suggesting Mediawiki extensions, the Special:Interwiki one would be a good one, considering the number of templates we’re designing to link to external libraries. Previously requested by me:

If you can convince Feldmahler this would be a good idea, sure. I support it, though the maintenance cost is what worries me.

LOL, that was a nice bit of deflection, but the Special:Interwiki extension has been compatible with Mediawiki 1.6.0 onwards and presumably stable through most of the subsequent versions; code maintenance is now transferred across to the Subversion control system of Mediawiki itself. The last minor update was less than a fortnight ago in June to add another internationalisation of the php interface page, which looks like it supports about 20 different languages (where we are struggling to have customisation of FTE templates for more than just English). CPDL has had it installed for years without problem. There’s much less maintenance worry for this extension than the talk page extension beta.

Do we really need the LiquidThread level of functionality for talk pages? (*he said in a sceptical tone of voice*) Also, the release status of the extension is “beta” (a new version is in “development”… sometime in 2011. Right).

Why not? It would be easier to archive, organize, and discuss. Yes, you're right, it is in a "beta" state and a new version is in development. However, this is a much improved version from the one that was previously released. I suppose it can only get better, assuming it doesn't follow the declining trend of Microsoft, but I see no reason we shouldn't have it. Perhaps we can think more seriously about the issue after it is out of the beta state, and once Feldmahler offers his ideas.

One thing I noticed on the Mediawiki extension page is that a special variable is needed on the talk page to opt in or opt out of the system, depending on the default status of the LiquidThreads installation (which is that you can set it so that all or no talk pages use LiquidThreads). I’m fairly certain the initial status would be to have threading off, and talk page owners who wish to use it have to include {{#useliquidthreads:1}} on their page.

I’d also like to state my agreement with Kenny’s suggestion that some alternate methods of searching the CR tag system would be a useful update to have.

Cheers, Philip

[NLewis]

Kenny,

That is a nice suggestion. With regards to the copyright system, I would also like to suggest the possibility of having it view more than 50 files at a time. It would be nice if it could be the same as the wiki (50, 100, 250, 500). The main problem with this, however, is that it could crash the system. Something I'm not willing to risk?

Philip, I believe you are correct about the Liquidthreads being optional. Hopefully if it's installed, people will be apt to using it. I believe it would be a very useful for discussions. However, I also understand that people may like the traditionality of the other talk pages more, and that is perfectly fine as well. If we really do have the option of using it, I see that as more of a reason to install it. Then people who like it can use it, and people who don't can ignore the extension.

I would still urge everyone to consider the Tree And Menu extension. I have no doubt this would be invaluable for worklists. The chat feature is just an idea for an alternative to the IRC. I wonder if people are opposed to the idea, or think the IRC is a waste of time in general. The negative aspect can be boiled down to the following ultimatum: the work on IMSLP may dwindle as a result of having too much fun chatting with members of the wiki Hopefully, however, we can set aside a time to discuss ideas, ask questions, answer questions (new users), and better the wiki.

I also have a new idea which I think is worth considering. Daphnis raised an interesting issue of having users wait 6 months before they are promoted to being administrators. I have the following idea:

What if we added a new usergroup called "Roll-back users", which would be a step between normal editing users and administrators. The extra privilege is the ability to "roll-back" edits other users have made. I would suggest that this right be offered to trusted users who we think are candidates for administrative positions. This serves two purposes:

1. See what they will do with extra rights and how they can be trusted with them
2. See what their level of contribution is after the rights are awarded. Are they just editing the wiki for extra rights, or because they actually care about the project? Sadly, some people do not do it for the latter, which I think is the main problem. We will be able to notice, hopefully, with this new system in place.

The extension can also be used to create other user groups that we see fit on the wiki. I don't believe there are any groups that need to be made at this point, but you never know when a new project will arise. Perhaps we already have the extension in question - I am not sure - but I think it would be a valuable asset. Especially if people agree with my idea about rollback users. Here is a link to the extension:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AddGroups

Cheers,

Nick Lewis

[KGill]

Nick,
The rollback idea is an interesting one, but I am skeptical that it will be of much use - I mean, how many times is it even necessary to roll back others' edits on the wiki? In my case at least, I very seldom use it (only for those rare cases of vandalism), as I find it to be more polite to use the standard 'undo' feature for an edit made in good faith (since one can provide an explanation of why it is wrong as an edit summary). Creating a 'half-admin' group might be a good idea, but perhaps we should think of a different power (i.e., one with a greater practical use) to grant it?

[NLewis]

The intention is not so much to give them the right as it create a "half admin" group. Perhaps we can call this usergroup the "patrol" group, or something along these lines. I think the most practical right to give them would be the ability to delete pages. We can see how they operate with these rights for about 3 months and then offer them an administrative possition. My only hope is that we don't get an influx of users and become as tainted as Wikipedia :/ But I doubt that will happen since IMSLP attracts a very special and limited type of crowd

Let's see what other users think of this idea.

[KGill]

Yes, upon consideration I think that this would be an excellent idea. I think we should more actively groom new moderators, and an intermediate group would almost certainly be the best way to do it.

[imslp]

I just want to note that I am following this thread, and that I will keep the extensions mentioned in mind.

Just one thing about LiquidThreads (the others I don't know as much): I've been following LQT for several years now, and the biggest problem is that the LQT devs say they will be rewriting LQT (in an incompatible fashion) for version 3.0, but they have continuously pushed back the release date. It used to be March at the beginning of this year, now it's the end of 2Q (which has already passed of course). A few years ago it was supposed to be released on Wikipedia in 2009 or 2010 or something.

In a nutshell, while I am quite interested in LQT, I have lost all faith in the LQT dev's ability to meet deadlines, and will only believe it when I see it.

[pml]

Vapourware!

Thanks Feldmahler.

[KGill]

I have been giving some thought to the intermediate admin group idea and have altered (perhaps refined) my opinion somewhat.
I think this group could have much more use as something that is not just for possible candidates for full adminship. In my revised opinion, I think that it could function thus, but that it would be better to think of it more simply as a group for people who are definitely responsible but may not be up to being 'full' admins. The one extra privilege could therefore be entrusted to the contributor without the added 'baggage' of being thought of as a 'representative' of the site (to use one of Nick's phrases). It would simply mean they are good enough to have a bit of extra technical abilities. It would not necessarily convey the impression that they are being thought of as candidates for full adminship, though it could also be used as a vetting process for that purpose.
What are everyone's thoughts?

[NLewis]

You're refined opinion is more in line with the general intention of the intermediate admin group. Admins are, in my humble opinion, 'representatives' of the site, so the premise of having the intermediate group be for people who simply deserve higher rights, but are not symbolic representatives of the site, is very much in accordance with the intention. I suggest we move this discussion to the moderation forum and discuss, in private, possible candidates.