On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk > pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because > they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for > veterans? > > Regardless, you make a strong argument for keeping a meta-document > that spans threads and/or should be more persistent. A lot of this > stuff seems indispensable to recording decisions and linking to stuff > that backs them up, avoiding constant rehashing of issues. My concern > is how such a documents could be tied to pertinent threads in the > discussion oriented software. Maybe we could create anchors in such a > document that could make it easier for the right sections to be > displayed alongside threads that reference them in the UI.
The concept of a meta document, which uses wikitext and is editable using VE, would alleviate a lot of the concerns about Flow. It would be relatively simple to change processes from using 'Talk:x' to using 'MetaDoc:x' (still a big migration task, but less problematic than going through process re-engineering for every Wikipedia process in 250+ projects with their own language). If that meta document also had a talk namespace (MetaDocTalk:x), which uses wikitext, the old-timers (and bots) will still have a place to hold discussions and post notes using wikitext if they wish to. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
