On 10 June 2014 15:34, Quim Gil <q...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > * User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user talk > pages? No, we don't.
And yet this is a popular use for LQT on LQT-using wikis, so will need to be covered by Flow. > * Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 replies at most. The > benefit of a simple entry point for newcomers and junior editors clearly > surpasses the potential inconvenience for some vets, especially if our > priority is to be welcoming and open to diversity of people and opinions. This is the sort of phrasing that may raise the hackles of experienced editors; talk like this got a lot of people's backs up during the enforced VE trial. I fear you will have to actually convince people to get them to accept this. I do know objections for this use case have been raised already, e.g. being able to post a proposed slab of wikitext into a talk page. You need to allow for that one. > * Forums open to new / junior editors like > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support_desk . If you notice the > number of replies per thread, you will see that almost always they keep > themselves under 10 posts, so I don't envision major problems if we move > those to Flow as well. That might work. What do the people volunteering on them think? (That's pretty much the question to answer for all proposed use cases.) > * Hardcore forums for insiders. I wonder if there is any using LQT > nowadays, the ones that come to mind are based on pure Wikitext, and in > fact they are not even in a *Talk namespace. Therefore, even if Flow would > be powering 100% of the talk pages in Wikimedia wikis, it would be still a > decision of these forums to decide whether they want to stay with Wikitext > or use Flow. What examples are you thinking of? - d. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
