(04-24-2024, 06:19 AM)robkelk Wrote:(04-23-2024, 09:50 PM)Labster Wrote: In some sense, I understand why you think that a community director should answer questions that the community asks. On the other hand, given the upset and rancor yesterday caused by simply uploading an icon on a wiki, I would fear for my physical safety to answer that question.
Uploading an icon caused a furor? Looks like I need to go read Meta again... EDIT, a half-hour later: Where's the furor? I can't find it...
As for the question, I don't need an answer immediately. I don't even need an answer that commits somebody to a future course of action. But I do want something so that I can make an informed vote.
(04-24-2024, 03:05 AM)Labster Wrote: It turns out no one likes the Review software: formerly Flow, currently StructuredDiscussions, and future deprecated. I was going to file a bug report on the link until I found out the whole extension is being discontinued. The replacement is ExtensioniscussionTools -- which looks like it might be great for our talk pages, but not possibly not so good for our review pages.
The redlinks are coming from the linking to the review namepsace in the {{work}} template. I could go ahead and fix that temporarily by doing {{#ifexist:Review:Foo}} in the header -- it's an expensive function, but not too bad for only one. (The subpages list is another expensive function, but it only does one DB roundtrip, looking for one page more is another one!) But honestly, there are only 22 reviews so it would be best to just copy them to a Work/Reviews and I can change the work template.
I think we just need to figure out what our format looks like in wikitext, and then paste stuff, and lose our old reviews. Simple with linebreaks, or a template that draws a box around a review, with another place to add replies to the review below?
That's better than either of the options I came up with. I vote that you proceed with your plan.
I'll side with anything that makes more sense than our current setup.