Mailing List Archive

Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability
There is currently a patch in gerrit,
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging around
for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
benefits.

JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting it
up here to get a little more visibility.

Erik B.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
Please don't; signatures belong as a feature of the discussion and voting
systems and don't belong in wikitext. They're crufty enough as is and I'd
recommend against making them cruftier.

-- brion

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
ebernhardson@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> There is currently a patch in gerrit,
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging around
> for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
> benefits.
>
> JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting it
> up here to get a little more visibility.
>
> Erik B.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
Some folks in #wikimedia-parsoid are still real excited about the idea
though, so a couple more notes should people decide they like it anyway. :)

* Consider either a wikitext wrapper like {{#sig:Username}} (my preference)
or a markup tag like <sig>Username</sig> (Gabriel's preference I think?) to
go in the wikitext; this will make the resulting sigs look less crufty in
talk and vote pages (which do still exist, alas!)

* Use a span as the actual HTML rendering that can be parsoid-friendly and
thus VisualEditor-friendly.

* Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
if you do.

* Consider that old revisions and archived talk pages will not have this
markup, so there could be inconsistency. Beware what you use it for etc.

-- brion

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Please don't; signatures belong as a feature of the discussion and voting
> systems and don't belong in wikitext. They're crufty enough as is and I'd
> recommend against making them cruftier.
>
> -- brion
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> ebernhardson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> There is currently a patch in gerrit,
>> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging around
>> for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
>> benefits.
>>
>> JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting it
>> up here to get a little more visibility.
>>
>> Erik B.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> * Consider either a wikitext wrapper like {{#sig:Username}} (my preference)
> or a markup tag like <sig>Username</sig> (Gabriel's preference I think?) to
> go in the wikitext; this will make the resulting sigs look less crufty in
> talk and vote pages (which do still exist, alas!)
>

I think {{#sig}} would be bad, since {{}} is for the preprocessor, which
this shouldn't have anything to do with. <sig> wouldn't be bad though.


> * Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
> if you do.
>

Signatures are spoofable now. I don't think this is even worth worrying
about.

Jackmcbarn
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
My summary based on reading and looking at discussions:

Options are:

(a) use a regexp to identify sigs -- dirty, but can apply to old
discussions
(b) new markup <span>/<sig>/{{#sig:..}} added via PST -- cleaner, but
applies only to new discussions, but new wikitext markup
(c) don't do it and leave it for discussion systems to handle signatures

As for what direction to go with (a)/(b)/(c), that is a different issue.

If (b), I think parsoid folks (and jackmcbarn) are advocating for a
markup like <sig>..</sig> rather than inline <span> as in the patch or a
parser function. The <sig> allows for rendering to be semantic, html to
be tweaked as needs change (with the same markup), etc.

Subbu.

On 09/30/2014 05:00 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Some folks in #wikimedia-parsoid are still real excited about the idea
> though, so a couple more notes should people decide they like it anyway. :)
>
> * Consider either a wikitext wrapper like {{#sig:Username}} (my preference)
> or a markup tag like <sig>Username</sig> (Gabriel's preference I think?) to
> go in the wikitext; this will make the resulting sigs look less crufty in
> talk and vote pages (which do still exist, alas!)
>
> * Use a span as the actual HTML rendering that can be parsoid-friendly and
> thus VisualEditor-friendly.
>
> * Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
> if you do.
>
> * Consider that old revisions and archived talk pages will not have this
> markup, so there could be inconsistency. Beware what you use it for etc.
>
> -- brion
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Please don't; signatures belong as a feature of the discussion and voting
>> systems and don't belong in wikitext. They're crufty enough as is and I'd
>> recommend against making them cruftier.
>>
>> -- brion
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
>> ebernhardson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There is currently a patch in gerrit,
>>> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging around
>>> for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
>>> benefits.
>>>
>>> JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting it
>>> up here to get a little more visibility.
>>>
>>> Erik B.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Subramanya Sastry <ssastry@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> My summary based on reading and looking at discussions:
>
> Options are:
>
> (a) use a regexp to identify sigs -- dirty, but can apply to old
> discussions
>

This was written[1] for Echo a couple years ago at the beginning of the
project. This particular implementation is far from perfect, but here are
a couple of the complexities involved:

* a single regexp doesn't currently match timestamps in different
languages, so a timestamp regex is generated based on the $wgContLang
timestamp output.
* wiki's each control their own signature[2]. Changing the signature
exposed a bug[3] in Echo which caused it to stop sending mention
notifications.
* The fix[4] for above basically switches the code around to extract
wikilinks from the wikitext and run their content through Title to
determine if a link is to NS_USER, NS_USER_TALK, or the Contributions page
of NS_SPECIAL, all of which appear in signatures.

From the standpoint of programmatically detecting a signature, the above
could be cleaned up and work well enough.

Erik B.

[1]
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Echo/blob/master/includes/DiscussionParser.php#L550

[2] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Signature
[3] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71353
[4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/163651/

(b) new markup <span>/<sig>/{{#sig:..}} added via PST -se- cleaner, but
> applies only to new discussions, but new wikitext markup
> (c) don't do it and leave it for discussion systems to handle signatures
>
> As for what direction to go with (a)/(b)/(c), that is a different issue.
>
> If (b), I think parsoid folks (and jackmcbarn) are advocating for a markup
> like <sig>..</sig> rather than inline <span> as in the patch or a parser
> function. The <sig> allows for rendering to be semantic, html to be tweaked
> as needs change (with the same markup), etc.
>
> Subbu.
>
>
> On 09/30/2014 05:00 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> Some folks in #wikimedia-parsoid are still real excited about the idea
>> though, so a couple more notes should people decide they like it anyway.
>> :)
>>
>> * Consider either a wikitext wrapper like {{#sig:Username}} (my
>> preference)
>> or a markup tag like <sig>Username</sig> (Gabriel's preference I think?)
>> to
>> go in the wikitext; this will make the resulting sigs look less crufty in
>> talk and vote pages (which do still exist, alas!)
>>
>> * Use a span as the actual HTML rendering that can be parsoid-friendly and
>> thus VisualEditor-friendly.
>>
>> * Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
>> if you do.
>>
>> * Consider that old revisions and archived talk pages will not have this
>> markup, so there could be inconsistency. Beware what you use it for etc.
>>
>> -- brion
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't; signatures belong as a feature of the discussion and voting
>>> systems and don't belong in wikitext. They're crufty enough as is and I'd
>>> recommend against making them cruftier.
>>>
>>> -- brion
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
>>> ebernhardson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is currently a patch in gerrit,
>>>> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging
>>>> around
>>>> for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
>>>> benefits.
>>>>
>>>> JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting
>>>> it
>>>> up here to get a little more visibility.
>>>>
>>>> Erik B.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On 9/30/14, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Some folks in #wikimedia-parsoid are still real excited about the idea
> though, so a couple more notes should people decide they like it anyway. :)
>
> * Consider either a wikitext wrapper like {{#sig:Username}} (my preference)
> or a markup tag like <sig>Username</sig> (Gabriel's preference I think?) to
> go in the wikitext; this will make the resulting sigs look less crufty in
> talk and vote pages (which do still exist, alas!)
>
> * Use a span as the actual HTML rendering that can be parsoid-friendly and
> thus VisualEditor-friendly.
>
> * Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
> if you do.
>
> * Consider that old revisions and archived talk pages will not have this
> markup, so there could be inconsistency. Beware what you use it for etc.
>
> -- brion
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Please don't; signatures belong as a feature of the discussion and voting
>> systems and don't belong in wikitext. They're crufty enough as is and I'd
>> recommend against making them cruftier.
>>
>> -- brion
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
>> ebernhardson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There is currently a patch in gerrit,
>>> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/130094/ , that has been hanging around
>>> for a few months. To me it seems like an easy patch with some obvious
>>> benefits.
>>>
>>> JackMcbarn suggested this might need wider discussion/notice so putting
>>> it
>>> up here to get a little more visibility.
>>>
>>> Erik B.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Would this mean that if people had a fancy sig, and they changed it,
it would automatically update everywhere with this magic tag instead
of just applying to new signatures? (Which might be cool)

Downside to that you might have some tricky issue where people change
their sig after the fact to be something malicious (For some
definition of malicious), and then all the old sigs change without an
edit to track it and generally be a vehicle for mass vandalism.
(Didn't that use to be an issue on /. ?)

--bawolff

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On 30 September 2014 20:58, Brian Wolff <bawolff@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would this mean that if people had a fancy sig, and they changed it,
> it would automatically update everywhere with this magic tag instead
> of just applying to new signatures? (Which might be cool)
>
> Downside to that you might have some tricky issue where people change
> their sig after the fact to be something malicious (For some
> definition of malicious), and then all the old sigs change without an
> edit to track it and generally be a vehicle for mass vandalism.
> (Didn't that use to be an issue on /. ?)
>

This also makes working out ​what the state of the page at time X quite
hard for things like "Please note that I am being paid to edit by XYZ Inc."
that come and go from month to month to be seen. I'd not be a fan of
changing this expectation without a huge amount of prior notice, and
definitely not doing to retrospectively…

J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

jforrester@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would this mean that if people had a fancy sig, and they changed it,
> it would automatically update everywhere with this magic tag instead
> of just applying to new signatures? (Which might be cool)
>
Other downside of this would be the performance hit of looking up all those
signatures. Some pages have hundreds, if not thousands, of different users'
signatures.

Jackmcbarn
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jackmcbarn <jackmcbarn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > * Consider though whether the HTML should be "spoofable" and what happens
> > if you do.
>
> Signatures are spoofable now. I don't think this is even worth worrying
> about.
>

The point of this exercise seems to be to be able to identify signatures
programmatically in some manner that is supposed to be official "this is a
signature, not just a blob of wikitext". But along with the officiality
comes the need to consider what happens if someone puts an "official"
signature (maybe for someone else) in the middle of their post.

OTOH, if you somehow strip the "official" signature markers then what
happens when it's an archive bot copying posts to an archive? Or someone
moving a misplaced talk page post to the correct location?


--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
The idea of <sig> seems fine to me as a way to semantically designate signatures, however I'd like to caution against using a <span> in the expanded text, as while it may not be an issue with WMF wikis, some third-party wikis format signatures like you would in a forum (in that there is a signature "block" underneath the post, alas I cannot find that wiki again so no example), and these signatures can contain block-level elements. Rendering to a <span> may break that style of discussion, perhaps we can instead render to a <div> and set display: inline for it in the default css. Then a wiki could override this to move it wherever or display it as a block if they so choose.

Another alternative is keep the span, but add a hook to allow extensions to fully modify the output (including changing the span to something else), that way we can keep the sig semantically valid for the 99.99% of them that are actually used inline.

Also, +1 from me on *not* automatically changing old sigs as they get updated, as we could lose valuable temporal information that way (such as the aforementioned "I'm being paid to edit" disclosure). Wrapping existing signatures in <sig> seems fine if someone wants to code that system, but that's the extent I would personally go with modifying existing signatures.

Regards,
Ryan Schmidt

On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Derric Atzrott <datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:

>>> From the standpoint of programmatically detecting a signature, the above
>>> could be cleaned up and work well enough.
>> Would this mean that if people had a fancy sig, and they changed it,
>> it would automatically update everywhere with this magic tag instead
>> of just applying to new signatures? (Which might be cool)
>>
>> Downside to that you might have some tricky issue where people change
>> their sig after the fact to be something malicious (For some
>> definition of malicious), and then all the old sigs change without an
>> edit to track it and generally be a vehicle for mass vandalism.
>> (Didn't that use to be an issue on /. ?)
>
> I haven't looked at the actual patch yet, but based on the discussion
> it seems like this code would allow us to update pages if people's
> signatures changed? I too am not sure this is a good idea.
>
> I do though support the idea of wrapping signatures in a <sig>
> markup to make it easier to programatically detect them. That
> <sig> markup could be rendered as a span with a class="sig" as well
> which allow those who are just scraping the HTML of the page to be
> able to detect them as well.
>
>> This also makes working out what the state of the page at time X quite
>> hard for things like "Please note that I am being paid to edit by XYZ Inc."
>> that come and go from month to month to be seen.
>
> This is one of my biggest concerns as well.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On 1 October 2014 08:17, Ryan Schmidt <skizzerz@gmail.com> wrote:

> The idea of <sig> seems fine to me as a way to semantically designate
> signatures, however I'd like to caution against using a <span> in the
> expanded text, as while it may not be an issue with WMF wikis, some
> third-party wikis format signatures like you would in a forum (in that
> there is a signature "block" underneath the post, alas I cannot find that
> wiki again so no example), and these signatures can contain block-level
> elements. Rendering to a <span> may break that style of discussion, perhaps
> we can instead render to a <div> and set display: inline for it in the
> default css. Then a wiki could override this to move it wherever or display
> it as a block if they so choose.
>
> Another alternative is keep the span, but add a hook to allow extensions
> to fully modify the output (including changing the span to something else),
> that way we can keep the sig semantically valid for the 99.99% of them that
> are actually used inline.
>

​Or, more simply, span.sig { display: block; } in your site​ CSS, rather
than putting the burden on, as you put it, the "99.99%"… :-)

​J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

jforrester@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
2014-10-01 17:17 GMT+02:00 Ryan Schmidt <skizzerz@gmail.com>:
> The idea of <sig> seems fine to me as a way to semantically designate signatures, however I'd like to caution against using a <span> in the expanded text, as while it may not be an issue with WMF wikis, some third-party wikis format signatures like you would in a forum (in that there is a signature "block" underneath the post, alas I cannot find that wiki again so no example), and these signatures can contain block-level elements. Rendering to a <span> may break that style of discussion, perhaps we can instead render to a <div> and set display: inline for it in the default css. Then a wiki could override this to move it wherever or display it as a block if they so choose.

Using a <div> inside list markup (and we inexplicably use list markup
for discussions) will probably cause HTML Tidy to throw up all over
the output, a <span> is probably the only option. As you can see by
the list of blockers to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2542 , Tidy will
horribly break most of interesting kinds of markup.

(Not that I think trying to mark up sigs is a very good idea in
general, for the reasons Brion mentioned.)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On 01/10/14 01:25, Jackmcbarn wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would this mean that if people had a fancy sig, and they changed it,
>> it would automatically update everywhere with this magic tag instead
>> of just applying to new signatures? (Which might be cool)
>>
> Other downside of this would be the performance hit of looking up all those
> signatures. Some pages have hundreds, if not thousands, of different users'
> signatures.

Another issue if you try to do something like this is that on some
projects, the timestamps are often included inside the signature. And
given the visual disparity of the signatures themselves, we also
sometimes just look at prominently styled signatures and gauge the
general time period from the appearance instead of reading the entire
timestamp, since reading visual affordances like that tends to be quicker.

Wrapping the entire thing in a <sig> without trying to do anything
overly fancy to the content, however, wouldn't pose any problems here.

-I

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: Wrapping signatures with a <span> for discoverability [ In reply to ]
On 09/30/2014 05:23 PM, Erik Bernhardson wrote:
> This was written[1] for Echo a couple years ago at the beginning of the
> project. This particular implementation is far from perfect, but here are
> a couple of the complexities involved:
>
> * a single regexp doesn't currently match timestamps in different
> languages, so a timestamp regex is generated based on the $wgContLang
> timestamp output.
> * wiki's each control their own signature[2]. Changing the signature
> exposed a bug[3] in Echo which caused it to stop sending mention
> notifications.
> * The fix[4] for above basically switches the code around to extract
> wikilinks from the wikitext and run their content through Title to
> determine if a link is to NS_USER, NS_USER_TALK, or the Contributions page
> of NS_SPECIAL, all of which appear in signatures.
>
> From the standpoint of programmatically detecting a signature, the above
> could be cleaned up and work well enough.

I agree. If we can solve this with a reasonable amount of tech and elbow
grease in a way that works for old discussions too, then I think we should
do so.

Gabriel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l