On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Quim Gil <q...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> * User talk pages. Do we need multithread tree discussions in our user
> talk pages? No, we don't.
>
{{citation needed}}
I suspect this is just like the point below.
> * Regular talk pages. In most cases a section gets 2-5 replies at most.
> The 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.
>
Until some complex discussion happens and Flow's lack of threading makes it
nearly impossible to actually follow divergent subthreads. It's bad enough
in something like Gmail where quoting is used extensively to supply the
needed context, and Flow currently has no automatic support for quoting.
> * 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.
>
I suspect this would quickly turn into an argument based on "Everything
else uses Flow, this should too!"
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
