Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May 2019
Talk pages consultation: Phase 2
[edit source]The Wikimedia Foundation is currently conducting a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.
Phase 1 of the consultation is over – thank you to everyone who participated! – and we've published the Phase 1 report. The report summarizes what people have said and what we've learned, proposes a direction for the project, and asks specific questions to explore in Phase 2.
Very briefly, the proposed direction is that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. We propose building a new design on top of talk pages that changes the page's default appearance, and offers key tools like replying, indenting and signing posts. To keep consistency with existing tools, the new design will be a default experience that existing users can opt out of. We also propose building features that experienced contributors want, including the ability to watchlist a single discussion, and the ability to move, archive and search for threads. Building these features may require some loss of flexibility, or small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions. The goal is to only make changes that directly enable functionality that users really want.
You can see more information and discussion about the proposed direction in the Phase 1 report, including the results of new user tests and some of the quotations from Phase 1 discussions that led to this proposal.
Now it's time to start Phase 2!
We have six questions to discuss in Phase 2, asking for reactions to the proposed direction, and pros and cons for specific changes that we could make.
You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:
- First, sign up your group here.
- Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group.
- Then start the conversation with the six questions listed in the Questions for Phase 2 section of the report.
- When the conversation is concluded, the host should write a summary of the discussion on the Phase 2 community discussion summaries page, and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.
You can read more about the overall process on MediaWiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.
Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you. DannyH (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The six questions are listed below. Please comment under each section and share your perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you think of the proposed product direction?
[edit source]Context: The Wikimedia Foundation proposes building a new, clearer design on top of existing wikitext talk pages. It will offer simpler tools for replying, indentation and signatures. You could continue to use wikitext on talk pages, if you prefer that. It should also be possible to participate in a discussion without using wikitext.
- Question: What do you think of this product direction?
Marking separate discussions
[edit source]Context: People want to watch individual sections on the talk page. They want better notifications, archiving, and search. To do any of this, we may need to create a more structured definition of what counts as a single discussion. This may mean making changes to the wikitext conventions on a talk page. For example, we may create a new way that discussion headings look in wikitext, or a new link that you need to use to create, rename or split a thread.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?
Helping newcomers find the talk pages
[edit source]Context: Newcomers have difficulty finding talk pages. During user tests, only one person out of ten found the <tvar|Talk1>Template:Int</> tab. Most testers looked for a <tvar|Talk2>Template:Int</> tab on the opposite side of the page, where all of the other tabs and links are. Many people also expected to see links to discussions about specific sections in the article. We may want to move the link to the talk page to the opposite side of the article page. We might add discussion functionality connected to individual sections.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the connection between article content and discussions more visible?
Where to show discussion tools
[edit source]Context: Currently, many wikis have community discussion spaces in the project namespace (<tvar|ns4>Wikiversity
</> or Wikipedia:
), rather than in a talk namespace (<tvar|ns5>Wikiversity talk
</> or Wikipedia talk:
). The project namespace is often used for village pumps/cafés, noticeboards, and some workflows, such as Articles for deletion. The system will need to know where discussions happen, so that it can display the new tools in those discussions, and not display them on other pages. There are several potential ways to do this. One of them is to move all discussions to a talk namespace.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?
History tradeoffs
[edit source]Context: Sometimes, you need to see the history of the entire page. Other times, it would be more helpful to see the history of only a single discussion thread. It would be ideal if we could provide both, but we're not sure how to do that.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a complete page history or a specific thread history?
Metadata location
[edit source]Context: Some wikis place templates at the top of article talk pages. These may show instructions, warnings, or FAQs. They may hold page quality information, link to relevant WikiProjects, or identify past activities. Many new users are confused by finding non-discussion material at the top of an article talk page. It would be helpful to move some or all of that content somewhere else on the page, or under a different tab.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Which templates are crucial for the proper use of a discussion page, and which could be moved somewhere else?