Wiktionary:Grease pit/Active subtopics

This page is no longer active. It is being kept for historical interest. No discussion is needed to revive this page; simply remove the {{inactive}} tag and bring it up to date.

Active subtopics

(Since this is the Grease pit, perhaps we can dog food the suggestion of aggregating active conversations through inclusion. Rod (A. Smith) 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Absolutely! --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, editing this section, I see a minor problem already with doing that. (Edit it yourself, and see.) While I agree that we should be eating our own dogfood, it does also imply that someone will hover over this page and sub-subpage every section as sections are added. And/or that the sub-sub-paging will be somehow automated. Or both. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. We'll need double headers then. Or, 1 header, here, and just an edit link to the subpage. —Vildricianus 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but I'm not sure of the "best" top level headers arrangement, nor how to get back here after editing a sub-page. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back works with the "subpage of" link right below the pagetitle, right? —Vildricianus 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point: no quick viewing of histories, which is darn useful. —Vildricianus 17:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see this last point as a major disadvantage. I'm used to following things by their history, which gives me a clear view on who said what and when, regardless of post disruption later on. This is completely impossible with the subpage system. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure whether it's still necessary. I'm highly enthusiastic about our new rooms and the new system; it looks like there's more breathing room now (pun?). For these reasons, most of what has been said on Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour#Revamp is now less necessary (actually, #2 is more or less what happened, and we can still extend it if we need yet another room in the future). With more frequent archiving, though, the BP should become more manageable. Therefore, let's consider subpages for discussion unnecessary for now. We can still use it for more extensive discussions if required, much like what happened with User talk:Connel MacKenzie/Normalization of articles. Anyone else agrees? —Vildricianus 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. I'll subst in and delete the below subpage. Rod (A. Smith) 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Done)

Thanks Rod. —Vildricianus 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would like us to give this a test run before withdrawing it. A big help towards "following things" would be to link to a diff to the point in the main page where the conversation broke off. That would mean you don't have to search through ancient pages. If it still doesn't work then we'll know by experience. It could also be that it doesn't work at first but we'll think of ways to improve it. That's not going to happen if we don't try it. If we try it and it really does fail then we can always get rid of it safe in the knowledge that we gave it our best shot. — Hippietrail 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Absolutely, we should still consider it for larger discussions. The one below was, however, started in a subpage position, IIRC, which I think is confusing. Breaking of larger topics that were started here and leaving behind a link to the history page is indeed workable, I guess. —Vildricianus 10:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have another idea: if we list all transcluded subpages at the very top (below the roombox) of this page, that would assist quick history viewing. — Vildricianus 12:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been working out this last one, and I think it's not a bad idea. The idea behind the Beer parlour is to move possible policy discussions and such to separate Wiktionary: pages to work them out further. We could do the same here, but instead of moving them to untraceable locations, we can use subpages of the GP. With this option, they can first remain transcluded, and after a while be left out of this page to make it shorter, and listed in a section or box at the top of this page. People should then make a habit of check those pages once in a while. With any new groundbreaking ideas, a new thread can be started here. I think for instance that this is already applicable to the #2-level dictionary, #Standardized customizable inflection templates and #Customization templates to provide both UK and US spellings topics here. Any thoughts? This probably goes hand in hand with the archiving proposals below. — Vildricianus 19:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Implemented suggestions above above, as /Standardized personalizable inflection templates is destined for the archives. Let's see how it works. Rod (A. Smith) 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, very good idea to list them in that section. I've reordered things a bit, so that there are two level 1 sections here. I've altered MediaWiki:Monobook.css so that on subpages, the link to the basepage is more visible. Instead of using "return to WT:GP" each time, this link will do the job.

I've also moved three more topics to subpages. I'd like to see how well this works but I think this is exactly what we need. — Vildricianus 13:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even more functionality. What do you guys think about the {{/template}} magic and the history, edit and watch links? — Vildricianus 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Vild. Well done. {{/template}} is very convenient, though perhaps confusingly named. Do you think "{{/subtopic}}" be any better? Rod (A. Smith) 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was first going to make a general one in the Template: namespace but figured out it would be simpler this way. Keep in mind to have a lowercase thing. (I'd say that all subtopics should start with uppercase.) — Vildricianus 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually not. The name "template" should be clearly distinguished from the others in Special:Allpages/Wiktionary:Grease pit, and "subtopic" is ambiguous in that context. — Vildricianus 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)