Talk:Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce

Delivery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Will it be posted by MassMessage? wargo (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF) wargo (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, unless if you post it manually before (because you would like to be a coordinator). :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sentence that doesn't read well

There seems to be a sentence in the page which doesn't seem to read well.

> What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?

As a consequence it's not clear what the sentence was intended to mean. So, it's not possible to translate it. It would be nice if it could be clarified. Kaartic ^[talk] 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha, sorry. I crash test sentences in languages I speak, but they may be too similar to me to find a blocker.

It could be phrased as "how newcomers use talk pages and what blocks them". Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated the page to use the statement you suggested. Kaartic ^[talk] 16:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Who is "them"? The newcomers or the talk pages? The sentence is unclear, and even if it’s obvious you mean the former, not the latter, it might be especially confusing, ironically, to newcomers.

On the other hand, the sheer statement that talk pages block newcomers is assumed, which is yet another data point showcasing the insidious gaslighting this whole matter is being pushed to the public with. (Cp. wikt:wife-beating question.)

One of the basic assumptions of this project, that changing nothing is not an option, shows its true nature (makework for WMF code darlings) and the paradoxical inability/unwillingness of the the powers in charge to embrace the fundamentally novel nature of wiki work wanting to force us to a webforum / comments section ethos, disguised in snazzy, flashy bells and whistles to hide what is nothing more than a unsuitable 1990s concept. Tuvalkin (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Description of this board

Why is this board’s description someone’s resume in an Azerbaijani? It’s spam?, it’s a user badly lost her way? Anyhow, way to showcase usability… Tuvalkin (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Spam; gone now.

Unfortunately it is not possible to protect board descriptions in flow. Clump (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When does this consultation close?

It would help me greatly with planning my talk with several involved wikis Gryllida 08:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

First, when does it exactly starts ;) wargo (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Since people have created pages at the moment we have posted the announcement and more people have already provided feedback, well, it is official: the consultation has started. :)

The scheduled end is the end of March.

We advise you to post on one wiki, the one you are mainly active on. If you plan to host a conversation, the same advice applies to avoid you to have a hard time when you will have to recap everything. :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

Thank you for making the effort to facilitate open/public discussion of the wide variety of topics covered in the myriad of Wikipedia's articles. We have an observation regarding the semantics of your initial offer for increased communications with the Wikipedia community. Talking "to" another person/group suggests addressing them with one's own thoughts/ideas, dictatorial. Talking "with" another person/group suggests a two way conversation seeking to elicit the thoughts/ideas of the other, cooperative. It's subtle but over decades we have observed its efficacy. Keithf (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Many talk pages/discussion pages (ones that I have contributed too) appear to be dominated by oppressive censures (individual and group) who like to hear/proclaim themselves and their opinions speak/write. All too often (again, in my contributions) do I run into factions espousing their personal arguments, to a degree of tyranny. Guidelines for articles do not seem to apply to talk/discussion pages. Hence, I personally withdraw my further contributions (to the talk and ultimately to the article).

Furthermore, articles (those in which interest myself or my study) seem a bit gloated with irrelevant material, or at least in no logical symmetry, and upon review of the history, seem to be dominated by 'pov'.

I do not think rebuilding a talk/discussion page is an answer, I do think responsible moderation is applicable. Suijur (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please excuse my arbitrary inference. Suijur (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback.

The social aspect is also under consideration. We have several users, from several communities, who expressed that. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't foist an undeselectable new design upon us

(I came here from the English Wikipedia banner)

I realize newbs have a tough time with standard talk pages. But old hands like me have an equally tough time with particular and strange editors. The further removed from a plain text editor the worse it gets. This very talk page style is the perfect example.

Whatever you end up doing, make it **opt-out-able**. There are those of us who prefer source code editing, and where any kind of GUI actually makes things harder and worse.

Signing off because I want to, yours truly CapnZapp (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you want normal wikitext pages? wargo (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the proper venue for this. I merely came here because I wanted to record at least one voice for keeping the option to use wiki markup on talk pages; as opposed to something like what we're using right now, which for most editors was a sudden change with zero choice to opt out. As for the constructive discussion on how to proceed, I'm getting the impression this process isn't at that stage yet. So I respectfully decline to engage in your query. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

For example, Flow still allows use wikicode in posts. wargo (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Flow forces an enormous amount of white space on posts, which cannot be deselected for some reason.

Look I am not saying "don't make it easier for newbs" and I'm not talking about the default layout. I'm saying "please retain a compact advanced user-mode" and make it something you can choose.

I think the main reason Flow was rejected by English Wikipedia was that it wasn't optional. It's the "here's XYZ whether you like it or not" philosophy I'm talking about - and against. CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)