Thread:Not using LiquidThreads (2)


 * Should we be using liquid threads for this discussion instead of the discussion header? I think I approve of the capitalisation statement but we are in WikiEducator_Talk:Style guide and the page where I originated was Workgroup:style guidelines. So following the statement the guidelines I should have started in Workgroup:Style guidelines? Kruhly 05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I accidently cut out the note I used in a previous iteration of this discussion. It explained that I chose not to use LQT for these particular discussions for archiving and readability purposes.  I will put that note back up.  I'm not sure I understand your last question, so I'll just explain why I put the pages where I did.  First, the workgroup page is there because that's where I understand the administrative content for the workgroup is supposed to go, according to the workshop guidelines that are being developed at Workgroup:WikiEducator Workgroups.  I also needed three more pages: one to display the guidelines as they were agreed upon, and two discussion pages.  I wanted to keep the general and workgroup related discussions separate from the guideline discussions for readability of the guideline discussions. Alison suggested to me, during an earlier iteration of the workgroup, that the guide's draft go to this project page (You can see that conversation here).  So, I thought it logical the general discussion go with the workgroup page, and the guideline discussion go with the Style guide draft.  I'm open to suggestions, though! --Jesse Groppi 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * mmmm -- I see the challenge, we have multiple stages of development requiring different discussion pages. Perhaps we need a subpage called something like "Proposed guidelines" (e.g. WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed guidelines) -- each proposed guideline is listed as a bullet on this with a sub-page link (e.g.  WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed guidelines/Capitalisation). This sub-page could have a standard template with headings like (1) Guideline proposal (2) Discussion -- if you prefer not to use Liquid Threads (3) Status with options for proposed, suggested for approval, approved when this is moved over to the draft guidelines. This way we treat each guideline as an entity rather than a single page. Hope my description makes sense, if not I could try setting up an example. We could also think about using http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:InputBox which on the Proposed guidelines page which would create the subpage and contain the headings and subheadings template for the discussion and approval of the actual guideline  --Wayne Mackintosh 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jesse, My last question was a sleepy way of saying that I was confused to why the workgroup called Workgroup:style guidelines did not seem to be following the proposed style guidelines. I have added a redirect in Workgroup:Style guidelines to the lower case version, so that I can find the  page again when I'm tired. Kruhly 06:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, yes, I noticed that right after I created the page, then yelled out, "crud!", or something to that effect. Thank you for adding the redirect, though now that you've reminded me, I wonder if it should be moved to the proper title, putting the redirect where it is, now. --Jesse Groppi 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)