Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Archive/Renovate all discussion pages - they won't be a wikipages

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal ►

◄ Back to Archive  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


NoN Outside the scope of Community Tech

  • Problem: talk pages are not convenient to use.
  • Who would benefit: all users.
  • Proposed solution: turn on talks without wiki-technology in all talkpages (non-multiple-namespaces). Discussions will be like as comments on http://4pda.ru, http://habr.com or other sites with same design of comments. It is simple, laconic and functional. But don't loss the templates with {}, they will work.
  • More comments: Ye, it's a rocket science. Renovate all mechanics of discussions! But... Really, we are the most popular site in the Internet, why we will look like a Soviet tractor? We will look like Yandex, Google and other top sites. Don't be a dinosaur!
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion[edit]

You seem to be asking for the feature currently called "Structured Discussions", which has a long and somewhat controversial history. Anomie (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think there is already a good implementation discussed above about adding 'reply' link at talk pages, it is a good implementation in my view. Gryllida 22:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think that now it is unlikely to expect the conversion of discussion pages from wikitext into something else. There were already two attempts (Flow and Structured Discussions), and both ended not very well. I think that a much more useful and realistic direction at the moment is to improve the editing of wikitext. For example, in Russian Wikipedia there is the Convenient Discussions script (made by Jack who built the house). It seems to me that it makes sense to develop this initiative as a gadget for all projects. — putnik 00:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link to the script! I'm reading the code now. Enterprisey (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Enterprisey How does it compare with yours (w:User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js)? Gryllida 23:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't think you can select a single comment and reply to it, but I really have no idea - I can't read Russian. That feature is a key part of reply-link. The code looks like it does more or less the same sort of stuff, but it's much more involved than reply-link, so it takes more time to read it. Enterprisey (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Putnik regarding that see this proposal if you haven't already. Galobtter (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Фред-Продавец звёзд and others, I have good news and bad news about this proposal. :) The good news is that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting the planning process for a big global Talk pages consultation which will begin in February. The idea is that we need to step back from LiquidThreads and Flow, and start over with a totally public and transparent consultation. We want to bring together as many people as possible, and come to consensus on the problems with talk pages that we want to solve, the good things about talk pages that we want to keep, and the tradeoffs involved in finding a solution that will work for new and experienced editors. You can read a lot more about it on that project page that I linked. The planning has just started, and we're starting to talk about the structure for this consultation and how it's going to work.

The bad news for right now is that we don't want to include proposals about talk pages in the Wishlist Survey voting. No matter what happens in the Wishlist Survey voting, all of the future talk page work will be determined by the Talk pages consultation happening next year. We don't want people to vote for something, and then find out that we still have to have another process before we make any decisions.

But -- these proposals and the discussions that people are having here are important, and I've added a section on the Talk pages consultation page which lists each of the related proposals, so that they can be a part of the public record during this planning stage. We'd like to include all of you in the consultation -- and in the planning, if you're interested. There's a lot to talk about and figure out.

I'm sure this will be disappointing right now; I hope it's also heartening to know that this problem will get a lot of attention next year. Let me know what you think. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)