Not using LiquidThreads
This conversation was moved here from another talk page. --Jesse Groppi 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have purposely chosen not to use LQT for the following discussions because there are expected to be a large number of active discussions going on at once. Because of this, I think it is essential to archive closed discussions at the time of their closing, and not to leave behind a summary or heading in order to make sure this page is more readable. I also think it is helpful to the contributors of these discussions that the archived conversations be found in a single location. Not using LQT also allows use of the table of contents to the discussion's advantage, as well as other formatting techniques that help make the page more readable. --Jesse Groppi 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jesse -- We're dealing with a complex structure and process, see my earlier comments which I've copied here for convenience:
- 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)
- Here is an example of what I mean: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed_guidelines -- hope this makes sense :-) --Wayne Mackintosh 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I like Wayne's suggestion of using subpages (regardless of having the discussion in lqt or not). The current format will get unruly very quickly IMHO. Just a quick note on subpages while thinking about it: I have not found the search in the wiki to very robust in finding pages and even worse when there are many levels of subpages. Should WE look into ways to improve the search engine so that it has some additional options like searching for a subpage ( or shortpage similar to how Template:ShortTitle made the titles more reasonable)? Kruhly 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hrmm, well the subpage bit is certainly neater, but I'm worried it may not be very convenient for the random contributor to add new points. I do rather like having them all on the same page, and I know that once we have a working style guide, this discussion area will be much less scary-looking. The subpage idea seems just as unwieldy to me as this, just in a different manner. But, is it what WE users are more comfortable using?
- As far as the different stages of development, the vision I had was that when we determine we've a proper body of guidelines prepared, we would remove the in progress comments from Wikieducator:Style guide, then considering it the "finished" copy (though it's never finished-finished). This talk page then gets opened up for any and all discussion on the guidelines, including new proposals which are discussed and ratified all in the one place before getting added to the "final" copy. We would have to redraft the charter to match the ongoing purpose of style guideline proposals more closely.
- I may not have that entirely thought out, and I would probably be willing to go the subpage route if it's more likely to be WE friendly. I've just got an inherent disapproval of subpage use :P --Jesse Groppi 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- We could use http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:InputBox to make it easier for users to create the subpage, and also have the option to preload the headings and help text as required. Including an appropriate category in the preload text will help keep track of the new pages created. --Wayne Mackintosh 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like a really good idea. I've seen inputbox put to good use over at Wikia. The only other solution I could think of was having a page just for new suggestions, and a facilitator would need to create the new pages. --Jesse Groppi 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did I get the correct number of colons ;-) With Wayne's WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed_guidelines format it looks like all of the proposed guidelines would be on the same page with the dicussions linked to the subpages. The input box would help create new proposal subpages but the new proposal text might need to be added manually to the list on the Proposed Guidelines page. Need to think about this ... as I have not used the inputbox recently. Would having status icons similar to the Whatis template help in indicating how far along the discussion is? Should we give it a go? Kruhly 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}}
- Jesse -- I think that it would be smart to include both -- a subheading on the relevant page for new suggestions, as well as the inputbox for creating new pages. Let the user choose :-) --Wayne Mackintosh 06:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Rob -- I'm not aware of any tricks to automate the link on the page -- this would need to be added manually. However, we could include a temporary category in the preload text which would list these pages. Easy enough for signed members of this workgroup to check the category for new pages and add the link to the main page list of guidelines. --Wayne Mackintosh 06:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did I get the correct number of colons ;-) With Wayne's WikiEducator:Style_guide/Proposed_guidelines format it looks like all of the proposed guidelines would be on the same page with the dicussions linked to the subpages. The input box would help create new proposal subpages but the new proposal text might need to be added manually to the list on the Proposed Guidelines page. Need to think about this ... as I have not used the inputbox recently. Would having status icons similar to the Whatis template help in indicating how far along the discussion is? Should we give it a go? Kruhly 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}}
- That sounds like a really good idea. I've seen inputbox put to good use over at Wikia. The only other solution I could think of was having a page just for new suggestions, and a facilitator would need to create the new pages. --Jesse Groppi 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, no way to automatically add the subheading to the proposed guidelines page, and the category is definitely simple enough to keep track of. I'm working on it, slowly. Yesterday I had a guest I wasn't expecting, so I spent most of the day with her, and I've been dealing with uni issues as well. --Jesse Groppi 16:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know what I can do to help! --Kruhly 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well I think we're all in agreement on the subpage thing, so, time to cut and paste? --Jesse Groppi 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I put the inputbox into the article, and created a new proposal page with it. What do you think? Do you like the use of Mytitle to display the full guideline? --Jesse Groppi 03:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Jesse Groppi (talk)
- 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)
Jesse Groppi (talk)
