- User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user
talk
pages? No, we don't.
- Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 replies at most.
The
I think you mean on average. There are outliers here, and they aren't that uncommon. That said i agree that in general user talk page discussions are simple, and the whose talk do i respond at is a big issue there.
That said, i still hate user talk pages that use lqt. Maybe flow will convert me one day into a believer, but it hasn't yet.
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.
Diversity and all that jazz is great. But that is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The point of a talk page in not inherently to be welcoming. Its not a party or a space primarily for socialization. The point is to come to conclusions on how to make a better article. Now diversity of opinion is important to that, but i think its important to separate ends and means. If the increase in welcomingness makes them less suited to their actual purpose, that would be bad.
I think an apt comparison would be to a conference. Being welcoming is important, but if that's all you are, its not really a conference.
- 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.
Yes. Lqt has proven itself here to be useful.
- 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.
--bawolff