On 19/03/15 07:00, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 2015-03-18 11:31 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
On 19/03/15 01:42, Danny Horn wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a
conversation
with messages like "3: Post C: reply to Post A". You could do that
with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic Nobel-Prize-winning
discussion threading still to be discovered, and it would probably look
like nonsense in all three.
We've tried in our testing to pretend that we're having real
conversations,
so we could see whether there's any logical way to get to eight
levels of
nested threading. It's not easy to organize make-believe
conversations, but
if you want to start a thread, I'd be happy to fire up a few sockpuppets
and pretend to talk about something with you.
I'm a little confused. Didn't LQT already solve this problem? Why not
just nest/thread things the same way it does, or how well-formatted
wikitext conversations in general do? That seemed to work fine; the
issues with LQT lay elsewhere, and the issue with wikitext really just
seems to be it all needs to be done manually and users often don't get
it right as a result, hence a good chunk of why we're trying to
replace it in the first place.
-I
Yes, Wikitext conversations did have a threading pattern.
From what I can see looking at a long discussion on a random FA talkpage
archive it goes like this:
Users indent after each message.
Then when it gets too deep someone starts their message with 0 indentation.
Conversations with larger messages end up reset quicker.
Unfortunately this model cannot be applied to LQT or Flow.
Um... LQT has exactly that model. Yes, you can keep going, but you can
keep going in wikitext, too, even off the side of the page (which is
exactly what uncyclopedians do sometimes precisely because they want to
go off the side of the page because they think it's funny, because let's
face it, it is funny), but normally you just start a new
conversation/thread/topic/whatever you want to call it if it goes too far.
There's no way to solve the threading problem for long complex
conversations directly because while you need that threading in order to
discern who is responding to whom, or even what is going on in general,
there is always only so much space on the screen. We accept this, we
outdent, or we refocus with a new section after it gets too long/we feel
like putting our usernames in the ToC, or we even wind up just having
everyone involved creating their own thread from the start (because
really, we all want our usernames in the ToC), but the problem of how to
handle it has been solved in practice.
-I
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
