00045: Possibility to comment pages

Summary: Possibility to comment pages
Created: 2004-09-17 09:19
Status: ToDo
Category: Documentation, Cookbook
From: thom
Priority: 55555 55555 55555 44322 111XX

Description: It would be nice to allow comments on locked pages with the possiblity to show/hide them.

See http://wikka.jsnx.com/ for an example.

Check out http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Comments. --Zverik

I copied priorites (above) and description (below) from PITS.00300, which suggests the same feature. --Henning March 08, 2005, at 09:54 AM

Description: Maybe it is usefull to add a discussion page standard to every new page. Just like in the big brother mediawiki. In that case people that aren't sure about the content of the page can ask questions here. Like: Is it true that, .... Didn't he die in 1857 in stead of ...... This content isn't usefull in the mainpage, but would be good in a discussion page. Also if the attr is set to readonley, users can put extra info into the discussion site. This wil improve PM greatly I think.

Yes, I'd find it very useful for leaving notes to other authors. When page has "almost-complete" state you don't want to put comments on the page itself.

That might be easy to implement by adding link to skins and allowing some special wikipage syntax like [[PageName::Discussion]]

As Zverik said above, it already exists with Cookbook/Comments. I use it, slightly modified for my convenience, and it works fine. I think it would be counterperforming to bloat PmWiki's core with functions that can be easily added as optional extensions. --DidierLebrun

We put something like [[DiscussionGroup.{{$Name}}|Discuss this page]] in our groupfooter and are very happy with this simple solution.

Comments should be on the page itself IMHO. I always found it disturbing that I had to explicitly activate the Discussion page - it's an extra step that hides the informal from the formal content.

It would also be useful for PmWiki itself. It would make a clearer distinction between actual documentation and "this didn't work for me" comments.

OTOH a separate discussion page does have its merits in situations where discussion is meant to be at least a click away (such as on wikipedia). It might be sensible to have both mechanisms.

Joachim Durchholz April 18, 2005, at 03:03 AM ---

I played a bit with this , as you can see on Cookbook:DiscussionTab For some projects I think it`s good to have a separated site for the comments. You can include the comment-site - if you want to have the comments on the same page as the articel. IMHO I think it is better this way. If its possible to highlight the "Discussion"-link only, if there is some active discussion running, I think there would be some nice possibillities to show this in the skin. (like "there is some discussion about this articel" e.g) or "discuss this page" MarcSeibert July 18, 2005, at 05:35 PM

On my own wiki (at wiki.saberpunk.net), I added a discussion tab that jumps to $DiscussionGroup.$Group-$Page. In the discussion group, I put the CommentBox and the Edit help in the discussion GroupFooter. Works pretty nicely, except that the comment pages are a little unattractive. ;)

I'll probably end up adding custom post markup or something.

I am l;ooking for a comments solutoin. I've tried both plugins comments and commentbox and neither are quite perfecr. If comments are on a separate page, I'd like to know the number of comments on them and when the last comment was made (I hate clicking on the page to see I have already read it). Or maybe that last x number of comments visible and click for more to see more comments. Kab August 01, 2005, at 08:43 AM

MediaWiki's discussion-page vs. form-posted comments

It should be noted that there are two different possible approaches to commenting/discussing a wiki-page.

An approach used in MediaWiki (a "discussion-page") creates a (nearly) ordinary wiki-page to contain each normal wiki-page's discussion. Therefore, it allows for editing previous comments and placing them in any order.

On the other hand, the approach of Cookbook.Comments etc. ("form-posted comments") restricts the user only to appending his comment at the bottom of the sequence of previously issued comments.

Different wiki projects may need one or the other approach, but not both of them. Therefore if any of them was to be included in the core, the differences should be carefully considered, unless a common codebase could be created.

Additionally, I suppose that such a recipe should always have an option to easily switch the comments placement between the normal page's bottom and a completely different page, only linked to from the normal page.

I don't think commenting needs to be part of the core. There are currently at least 3 cookbook entries for different comment schemes. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Leaving this feature "cookbook-enabled" allows admins to choose the scheme that fits their users.

See: CommentPageLink and CommentBox and Comments and ColorNotes

NeilHerber September 29, 2005, at 10:20 AM

It is very convenient to have comments or section edit in the core, because it is common in other wiki engines (i.e. MediaWiki). But it goes against PmWiki philosophy #3. Include it as cookbook is nothing really complicated. You can even do a simple comment group with build in features by adding a link in the page header/footer (see above). No need for core support here, let the admins choose.

Schlaefer September 29, 2005, at 12:11 PM

Moving this from CoreCandidate to Documentation&Cookbook. We currently use talk pages so this feature is possible with minor customization for {$BaseName} and PageActions. --Petko