This task represents the work involved with starting/publishing a technical RfC [1] to decide what syntax [2] ought to be introduced to enable people to write multi-line list items/talk page comments.
=== RfC
//The version of the RfC below should supersede the version written in the [RfC for multi-line comments](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOaltoNYXrD-YJ_OMmDrx797xUxx9ZA7pFlSkk5Riq0/edit) Google Doc. Ultimately, what's included below should be used to populate the TechCom's ["Create an RFC" template](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/82/).//
**META**
- Affected components: **⚠️EDITING + PARSING ENGINEERING TO POPULATE**
- Engineer(s) or team for initial implementation: **[Parsing team](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsing)**
- Code steward: **⚠️TBD**
**MOTIVATION**
The current lack of explicit syntax for multi-line comments means…
- Contributors are limited in the types of things (e.g. tables and images) they are able to embed in lists (read: indented talk page comments). This inhibits them from being able to communicate about and collaborate on components like [navboxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates), [series templates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Series_templates), and [infoboxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox) within indented comments on talk pages. When contributors really need to use such features, they'll sometimes break out of the indentation structure, making it harder for readers and algorithms to understand the structure of a conversation.
- Contributors are not able to create visual line breaks within talk page comments without using HTML code or [local templates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Paragraph_break).
- Contributors face a higher risk of markup errors contained with talk page comments posted using [DiscussionTools](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DiscussionTools) "leaking out" and corrupting content elsewhere on the talk page.
- Contributors who use screen readers have a more difficult time understanding conversations, and subsequently participating in them, because the tools they use are not able to properly narrate/speak/announce the comments in a talk page conversation. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility)
- People using features like the new [Reply Tool](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_project/replying) are not able to use templates, tables and extensions in the tool's `visual` mode.
**ADDITIONAL BENEFITS**
In addition to the resolving the issues listed in the "MOTIVATION" section above, the introduction of new syntax for multi-line comments would unlock new features like:
- Contributors could more reliably edit specific comments on talk pages that are wrapped in the new multi-line wikitext syntax
- Comment parsing would become more reliable, which would make it easier for contributors to build new gadgets that extend talk page functionality
**REQUIREMENTS**
- New syntax for being able to write components that span multiple lines inside an indented list item.
-- //Where a "component" could be: a table, template or an extension (including references)//
- This "new syntax" must meet the following conditions:
-- New syntax must not break existing content on talk pages
-- People need to be able to recognize the new syntax as being wikitext
--- //Read: the syntax should not be easy to mistake as being part of the message people are trying to communicate in the comments they post.//
-- People should be able to easily understand the meaning/function of the syntax by reading it context
-- New syntax needs to be interoperable with existing-and-future list-item talk page markup
-- New syntax must work across all languages and be reasonably convenient to input using different text input methods.
-- New syntax must be compatible with the core parser.
**BACKGROUND INFORMATION**
//The background information below does not seem to be a requirement of the ["Create an RFC" template](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/82/). I am including it here in case it's helpful context for those interested in the RfC.//
This RfC is part of the [Talk Pages Project](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_project). A project the WMF's [Editing Team](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing) is leading. This goal of this project is to help editors, across experience levels, communicate more efficiently on wiki.
This project is the result of the [Talk pages consultation 2019](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019), a five-month-long consultation in which volunteers from at least 20 wikis and staff from the Foundation defined a [product direction](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019/Phase_2_report) for building better tools for on-wiki communication.
A key outcome of the Talk pages consultation was the following product direction which continues to determine the design and implementation of the [new tools and features](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_project#Active_initiatives) we will introduce as part of this project:
> Wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. We will build a new design on top of wikitext talk pages that changes the page's default appearance and offers key tools. This new design should communicate to the user that this is not a content page, and help the user interact appropriately with the tools. | [Source](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019/Phase_2_report)
**EXPLORATION**
- {T230683}
- {T114432}
=== Done
| Status| Action | Owner | Ticket
| --- | --- | --- | ---
| - | Document the approaches that have been discussed so far (see: T230683), and the advantages and disadvantages associated with each one, here: [RfC for multi-line comments [RfC for multi-line comments](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOaltoNYXrD-YJ_OMmDrx797xUxx9ZA7pFlSkk5Riq0/edit) | //Approaches do not need to be defined upfront// | n/a
| - |Document the approach we favor and why we favor it here: [RfC for multi-line comments [RfC for multi-line comments](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOaltoNYXrD-YJ_OMmDrx797xUxx9ZA7pFlSkk5Riq0/edit). | //Approaches do not need to be defined upfront//| n/a
| //#todo// | Determine code stewardship | @marcella| T246960#6380444
| //#todo// | Determine "Affected components" in the "Meta" section above |Editing / Parsing Engineering|
| //#todo// | Publish RfC via ["Create an RFC" template](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/82/) | @JTannerWMF | T246960
| //#todo// | Make relevant stakeholders aware of RfC's existence | @Whatamidoing-WMF | T258850
---
1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment
2. Discussions about potential approaches can be found here: {T230683}