On 10 June 2014 15:34, Quim Gil <qgil(a)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.