|"Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users?". The level of discussion of this proposal is: Unknown|
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- This would really make the participation of newbies in discussions much easier and thus have quite big impact.--Kozuch 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
How are we going to convert the old discussion pages into this new system? --Mephiles602 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An 80/20 Point?
I am seriously interested in improving/structuring the discussion pages. I'm wondering if you could get 80% of the benefit with only 20% of the work, without going to a whole new threaded architecture and make people learn a whole new interface.
For example, I suspect you could do these things without losing the familiar wiki editing environment.
- Have older discussion sift down and fall off into archive pages automatically.
- Require that any marks that show up in the main page be linked somehow to a top-level topic on the Discussion page. Lots of times I've seen some tag like NPOV or citation and wasted endless time plowing through a labyrinthine discussion page to find out what the alleged problem is
- Add more controls like the "Add Topic" tab at the top of this page, e.g. "respond to" or "agree with" or "disagree with". These would impose some useful structure on the discussions and it might even be possible to enforce that all new edits start with one of these.
Glad someone else is thinking about this. TimBray 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)