It's too bad that the SE people have kept us waiting to enjoy features that they have already implemented.
I don't think there's anything like a community consensus that we should upgrade to SE 2.0. There seem to be some issues about our independence. There was a former discussion somewhere...
]]>As something of an aside, I don't think that it's fair to characterize Brian Conrad's comments on 50289 as cryptic. That question was a very technical one, about how certain deformation functors behave when one allows Artinian rings with varying residue field. Brian answered this question quite succinctly in his comments, and his explanations/references are easy enough for an expert to follow. Presumably anyone interested in a technical question of this kind on deformation theory (in particular, the OP) also has the technical wherewithal to follow the answer.
As evience, note that after Brian points out to the OP that he has answered the question, the OP doesn't follow up with more comments, so presumably the OP in fact understood that their question was answered. I don't think there is any reason to believe they were ill-served by Brian's comments, despite the suggestion to the contrary in the last paragraph of your post.
In any event, I would be happy to put Brian's comments into an answer, if people think there's a pressing need.
Regards,
Matthew
]]>I would like to also endorse this course of action. In my opinion the post doesn't have be community wiki, but I suspect some other people's oddly moral view of reputation would be offended by this.
]]>So I don't think it is realistic to try to set a policy on when one should use the comments and when one shouldn't. Some of the previous discussions have indicated that it is acceptable to post a comment requesting that the poster of the significant comment to convert his comment to an answer. And that it is also acceptable, if the question is essentially answered in the comments, to post a hash of that answer based on the comments in Community Wiki mode.
As to your second question: I agree in principle. But there is a rather large variation between what is considered advanced undergraduate level material and beginning graduate level material among various institutions. So I would prefer if the FAQ not phrase the distinction that way.
]]>