Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well, "people who are interested in the subject".
On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to >>> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name >>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so >>> on. >>> >> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it >> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was >> recently changed back to "talk". >> >> >> I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place for > wide ranging discussions on a subject. > > > Ray > > ______________________________**_________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l> > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
