Proposal talk:Rename the discussion page

    From Strategic Planning

    This proposal is by me: de:Benutzer:GattoVerde.

    Not a bad idea?

    In practice a Talk page serves only for the template of whatever project claims ownership. Perhaps it would be better to split off the page with the ownership-and-rating template and to create anew a Talk / discussion-page for those who actually want to discuss the article? - Brya 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think there's something to this idea. I think it should at least include the word "feedback" in the tab title, along with "discussion". --Bodnotbod 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that a huge number of talkpages contain nothing more than a template, but I don't find that this restrains use of the talkpage when it is useful. I do have concerns about renaming talkpages to "Feedback". Or even worse "Questions" as this might distract people from improving the article themselves or using the talkpages to discuss improvements to the article. In particular calling the page questions would risk people putting questions on the talkpage, and we simply aren't set up for that. We do have useful work done on en:Wikipedia:Reference desk but it is important that we channel reference queries there where they can be answered rather than have them scattered across talkpages where they may not be noticed for years. I'm a little less concerned about renaming talkpages as feedback as this is a legitimate, if secondary use of them. But as long as it remains a secondary use it would be illogical to make it the main name. Also feedback tends to be from experienced users who understand the site well enough to judge articles against each other and against other standards; whilst talk about mergers, article renaming and so forth often involves very new users and therefore needs to be more obviously the purpose of a talkpage than feedback. Lastly but most importantly of all, talkpage or discussion pages are titles that could logically include feedback purposes such as rating the article. Renaming them Feedback but still having them as the page for discussions about improving the article would be counterintuitive as feedback is a narrower term. WereSpielChequers 13:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    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 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    My Opinion

    Instead of trying to rename the discussion page to "feedback" or something else, let's instigate the discussion page to be used for real discussions. Proposal:Add or redesign tab for original research suggests that discussion tab content should not be deleted and original research that should be discussed and resolved on that page should be used as source for the articles. This would help collect many evidence on that tab that will attract expert scientific discussion, and be the most powerful source for evidence on this world! Malach

    In my experience, article contents and improvements are often discussed on discussion pages. Feedback about the quality of the information is something different and the two should not be confused. Apologies if I've misunderstood this proposal. -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]