TL;DR: over-moderation = bad. This forum needs banter. Start a purely technical section/group. Make quoting mandatory.
Let us see who reads all of this…
It is impossible to have an online forum like this one with the strict adherence of no-derailing, clear-cut topics, no repeating of questions, etc. as some members seem to desire. As pointed out by @mariusm this is not a wiki (not from my understanding of it).
While @mmaritz has been doing a great job at moderating, splitting threads etc. - over-moderation will suck all life out of this forum (being mod is generally a thankless role - props to @mmaritz (and I suspect @Louisvdw too) btw 
).
There are probably about 10-15 people who are very active, some like me who only post fairly seldom, people who come with a specific problem that gets resolved/or not and then disappear, and more recently also some link drop advertisers (which at least means the forum gets picked up by google).
Without the banter between the 10-15 active members and repeated questions, many threads will likely not go past 3-5 posts.
Very few threads are of a clearly technical nature. Rather than re-organise the entire forum maybe have a purely technical section in each category type where people are only allowed to post technical posts (“show your calculations” type posts) - and have these limited to for instance only people with a certain post count (or members have to apply to the group mod by stating experience/qualification and/or pass the group entry exam) but keep posts visible for all members to not turn it into a secret society within the secret society… (don’t know if this is possible @JacoDeJongh, @plonkster, @mmaritz, @Louisvdw).
Other than that, many people will arrive here via google and will not use the search function - so the regulars will either repeat answers or use the search function and point people to applicable threads/posts. If new people do not find an answer and do not ask for help, this cannot be helped. This is not a crisis helpline.
Threads will get derailed because for instance the practical limitation of someone typing a response to something specific while three other responses are posted in the meantime that steers the “conversation” somewhere else. Someone arrives 2 days after a thread has died-down (maybe had work commitments etc.), actually takes the time to read the posts in a thread and want to respond to something still related to the general thread topic but again not exactly continuing where the conversation ended at the last post.
When someone replies to a specific post, not having part of the original post included by default makes some of the threads look like a graffiti wall unless you take the time and read through the thread attentively. Maybe the thread “general reply” should be limited to the general/in the weeds/off-topic/drunk posts category and have the specific categories enforce a reply-to-specific-post/s with relevant quote policy (again, @JacoDeJongh et al. no idea if the forum software allows for this).
@Richard_Mackay, maybe make clearer what specifically you want discussed/excluded in a thread you start? A thread about the “challenges of the SA-Grid” during prolonged stage 4 load shedding will very likely end up referring to load shedding and how people respond to it which in turn will likely also then again end-up referring to practical options to
@mmaritz this thread is about threadjacking not PV array speccing - if the mods see this you could be in trouble… 
