The Improvement Guidelines article says: "Improve the formatting in the Discussion page to make it more readable and add internal links to the rest of the wiki […]. Don't remove mention of the authors of the texts or edit the text itself in major ways - the goal is to make such articles more readable, not to deprive the original authors of their due credit!"
I'm OK with this, but I'm wondering about the extent of the editing. It would have some merit not to change any wording (or even spelling) on the Discussion pages, while editing the text found there (heavily) to create non-Discussion pages. The Discussion pages would then remain "uncorrupted" (yet nicely formatted and link-laden) "originals". This would be a sign of respect for the original intentions and personalities of the posters. Is that what you had in mind?
If we do this, it would be excellent to have those little Template_messages things for two functions:
1: "This is an original Ice Cave email transcript from the DGML (or Jürgen's private stash etc.). Do not change the wording" and so on.
2: "This page uses material from the Ice Cave discussion (link)here(/link), but new ideas are welcome as long as you do not alter the gist of each idea already attributed to someone else."
I can't find code for templates in the wikidot.com documentation though.
Are we still supposed to attribute individual ideas in non-Discussion pages to their originators, or is the Discussion-page link sufficient?
What about email in the form of structured, well-thought-out essays? Should we have a special policy (like locking the contents once properly formatted) for those? (For example, A Possible History of the Tcho-Tcho.)