Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Installing LiquidThreads, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
LiquidThreads replaces discussion pages with actual forums, giving the following benefits: (Copied from )
A clear, simplified post/reply workflow so new users can jump right into the discussion.
Simple management of threads, including automation of archival, refactoring, and other tasks currently undertaken by bots and humans.
A powerful, flexible notification system, allowing users to keep abreast of developments in areas in which they are interested, ranging from entire discussion pages to discussion fragments.
Support for following discussion pages with RSS feeds.
Flexible post ordering, allowing users to keep track of which threads on a talk page are dead, and which threads are active.
A modern, AJAX-based interface, that allows users to quickly post and reply to other posts, without clumsy page loading.
Support—Stephen 06:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I support it for optional use on users' talk pages. I wouldn’t care to use it myself, and I’m against having it on community pages such as BP. —Stephen06:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Worth enabling testing. I assume that it would be removed promptly without vote if there are major problems of any kind and not reinstalled until those problems were addressed. DCDuringTALK17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I would not assume it would be removed without vote when only voter in support seems to want that. Also, removing it would require a developer, who may not be willing to do so, less so "promptly".—msh210℠16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Chances of anything happening that would require a complete disabling of LQT are virtually none, and if something did happen, the developers would probably treat it as an emergency. This has been used for quite a while on some projects, and seems pretty stable. Most of the things in the bug list seem to be suggestions for possible improvements to LQT, or otherwise requests to use LQT on a project (Hungarian Wikipedia and Swedish Wikisource have both requested LQT).--Yair rand17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Support. I would actually oppose as I had, but I support that option that is supported by the majority. --Dan Polansky20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Weakly oppose. This is buggy, per Conrad, and certainly not necessary. I wouldn't mind installing it and never using it except that apparently users can choose to use it on their talkpages, which it's sometimes necessary to use.—msh210℠14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Er, have any of the projects that are using LQT had any real trouble with it? The list of bugs seems to be mainly possibilities for improvements, not real problems. (And if they were real problems, then people wouldn't use it on their talk pages if they minded, would they?) --Yair rand17:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Re real trouble, I don't know. Re real problems, see : even a number of the mere enhancement requests are what users would call problems. And re what people would do on their talkpages despite bugs, well, no, I disagree. If LiquidThreads were somehow necessary, maybe I'd vote for it despite the bugs, but it's not at all AFAICT.—msh210℠18:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to disagree with "if they were real problems, then people wouldn't use it on their talk pages if they minded" but rather with the different "if they were real problems, then people wouldn't use it on their talk pages".—msh210℠20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a vote about using LQT in the discussion rooms, it's about enabling the possibility of using it on Wiktionary. If you don't want to use it on your talk page, then just don't add the {#useliquidthreads:1}. What's the problem? --Yair rand19:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I stated in my vote what the problems are. You can read them above. You can disagree with me if you like, but please don't badger me for information I've already provided. This is not a discussion; this is a vote. I have voted. --EncycloPetey19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not trying to change your vote, I'm just trying to figure out what it is that I missing. Feel free not to respond if you don't feel like clarifying. (And someone here is definitely missing something (probably me) because I honestly don't understand your or msh210's statements in the slightest.) --Yair rand19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
EP, when I read your post I had the same question as Yair. I see no badgering, simply an attempt at civil discourse. --Bequw→τ15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Fortunately, this vote is not about using LQT, it's about enabling the possibility of using it. Should this vote pass, it will be up to each user to determine whether or not it is too buggy to use. Having it available before the bugs are fixed doesn't really do any harm though, does it? --Yair rand20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
People do not own pages on Wiktionary. Even their own talkpages, to which they have more ownership than to most, others need to use. If the community thinks something is too buggy to use, then they should not allow its use on such pages either.—msh210℠20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Abstain. I can't support installing this without even the most basic of guidelines about how it's to be used. Previous discussion proposes, and some comments above assume, that the initial policy will be something like "Use of this feature is forbidden, except that editors may choose to activate it on their own talk-pages"; but nothing in the voted-upon text actually specifies that. (I'm also not sure I support all the claims being made in the vote text, but since they seem to be informative rather than normative, and no one seems to be proposing that they go into a policy page, that's not a deal-breaker for me.) —RuakhTALK15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me note after the close of this vote that if this vote is intepreted as supporting the use of Liquid threads in Beer parlour, then I would like to take back my supporting vote, and restore my opposing vote. --Dan Polansky08:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Responded in the BP. This vote has nothing to do with the BP or any other discussion room. It is simply about making the extension available. --Yair rand15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Support Yair rand 00:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Weakly oppose. This is buggy, per Conrad, and certainly not necessary. I wouldn't mind installing it and never using it except that apparently users can choose to use it on their talkpages, which it's sometimes necessary to use.—msh210℠ 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Abstain Conrad.Irwin 00:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I don't like it, but then I'm grouchy and old and boring. Conrad.Irwin 00:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)