I agree it is important to make clear what has changed. But, I must say I'm not exactly clear about what's _not_ clear. I take it from your message that the concept of namespaces is not clear, as is the concept of not using subpages.
Basically I'd explain the namespace issue as follows:
Talk and user articles are now in separate "namespaces" though I'm not at all certain we should try to explain namespaces. So, I'd say talk and user articles are now in separate parts of the wikipedia, in order to make it less likely to confuse these items with real encyclopedia articles. On the link bar, at the bottom is a talk link, this takes you over to the portion of the wikipedia devoted to the discussion of that particular wikipedia article. When you are looking at the talk page, in the same space is a link back to the article which that talk page discusses. There's no need to create /talk pages any more, as this new system allows for a cleaner separation of wikipedia articles and the other pages which we need to have, but don't count as encyclopedia articles.
And I'd explain the subpages issue as follows:
The new wikipedia software allows us to use parentheses markers to distinguish between different kinds of article. Before we had this for example, we'd have had an article "Poker/stud," but now the same article is "Stud (poker)." This means that we are now expecting "Stud (poker)" to be an entire article, not just a simple addition to the main poker article. Right now you can use /'s in article names, but we recommend against it because it isn't as clear as the (poker) notation (there are a number of different ways to understand the / in a title). On the other hand, on pages like TCP/IP, where the / is part of the name of the article, you can and should still use the /.
Another use people had for the "XXX/yyy" style page names was to break up longer articles into chunks. This can still be done by creating articles with titles like "World War II battles," rather than making a page "World War II" with a subpage "World War II/Battles."
************************
However, the above text simply explains the things I've guessed are not clear, and it intentionally ignores both the complexities of the argument against subpages, and the complexities involved in explaining namespaces to a newbie as well as the particular implementation of namespaces in the wikipedia software.
If we need a summary of the argument against subpages, I can try to boil down some points from the extensive debate on the subject. If we need a technical explanation of namespaces and how they work in the wikipedia, I think we can provide that as well. But the keys to getting adequate documentation in the hands of users who need it are 1) to understand where people need additional help, and 2) to make available clear links to that documentation at precisely the places where this confusion will be experienced.
Yours Mark Christensen
-----Original Message----- From: Julie Hofmann Kemp [mailto:juleskemp@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:06 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Plea for help
Larry, I have to apologize --
I've been so wrapped up trying to keep my course on track that I didn't respond at all to your letter. I was frankly just glad you were still going to be around! I'll help any way I can.
Also, (since I'm hoping lots of people are still reading this) we still have NO ACCEPTABLE INFORMATION on how some of the programming changes affect day to day use. I've offered to write something up -- given an explanation, but have been repeatedly ignored or blown off (partially because I seem to have offended some delicate programmer sensibilities by saying that they were acting exactly like programmers -- good at what they do, but less interested in making it clear to the user through documentation).
Whether or not people want to hear it, the new site is not all that user-friendly as far as explaining subpages and namespaces goes (or how to report bugs, for that matter -- why isn't there a bug report link?). People are still trying to create /Talk pages and /whatever subpages. All we need is a carefully placed announcement or two -- I suggest adding a special page (changes to the system) and links on the home page, on how to edit a page, and on recent changes. I know that Lars added some stuff on namespaces under the article, but what is needed is a primer -- something that says...where one did x in the old version, please do y in the new. I'd do this myself, but am pretty sure I can't create a special page (guessing it's an admin thing) and I'm still not clear on it. It appears that, instead of subpages, we should be creating link pages (maybe) and that each page is generated with an associated talk page.
JHK -- feeling very resentful that no one actually seems to think this is worth their time.
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:45:37 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com cc: intlwiki-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Plea for help Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
This is an unusual plea for help. It's possible I'm going out of my mind--I mean, I guess I don't think so, but sometimes it seems like it. :-)
Occasionally in the past, controversy has erupted that has occupied unfortunately large amounts of my time. Sometimes the controversy is definitely worth the time, but just as often it seems it isn't, not at all. Most recently, in the wake of my announcement that I am no longer a paid employee, that I will still be working though as a volunteer, and that we might (if we can) start selling ads and soliciting donations to help pay for me once again, apparently some people reacted not by saying, very kindly, "Oh, poor Larry, whatever will we do without him?" but instead, "Huh? There was a paid employee? And they might sell ads?! Someone was making money?! This must be a greedy capitalist exploitative project. This shouldn't be! We've got to do something about it!"
Well, I and sometimes Jimbo then spend a lot of time putting out fires. In the present case, we inform the newcomers that, yes, I did do a few useful things for the projects oh maybe occasionally; yes, the idea of fees for viewing content is absolutely ludicrous and has never been considered; yes, we *really, really are* committed to making and keeping the content always completely free forever; and yes, we have been considering making a nonprofit foundation for Wikipedia and Nupedia for a long time now; it's mainly a matter of getting enough time to actually start us formally down the road. (We can start with a "OK now, we're really going to do it, it's official, we're asking for pro bono legal help to set it up" kind of announcement, but we don't want to do that until we have the time to follow through properly. "We" in this case mainly means Jimbo.)
I think some people just sit back and enjoy the show, and figure that I can hold my own well enough.
Well, er, not exactly. I can, usually, if I spend the time. But I don't have the time anymore. I literally *don't have the time* for this kind of nonsense. I've spent, I don't know, three hours so far today working on various Wikipedia stuff, and it's not even 1 PM yet. I should instead have been, er, looking for a job, or a lot of other things my wife wants me to do. :-)
So, please, critics, have mercy--be gentle--and, non-critics, if you support my cause and think you can supply the correct response to an e-mail that, you can predict, I will want to have answered, please do that. Don't hold back waiting for me to do it. I'll be very grateful.
Larry
--__--__--
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@nupedia.com http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
End of Wikipedia-l Digest
Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l