Why? This would keep the software and the interface simple and more consistent. Look at the links to namespaces at the bottom of pages. Sometimes there is none, sometimes one, sometimes two. Why is that? And why on earth is the link to a discussion page called a namespace? And why is there no Talk page for SpecialPages?
I think constancy is not the solution, it's the problem.
The special namespaces contain pages which are functionally different from standard wikipedia pages. Talk namespaces are for discussion of articles, and user namespaces are for interaction with other wikipedians. These are NOT encyclopedia articles, and I think it behooves us to help anybody who comes to wikipedia to gain a clear and distinct understanding of this point as quickly as possible.
I would actually suggest that we try somehow to change the "look and feel" of the special namespaces, so that people will just SEE the distinction as they browse through our site. The fundamental problem I have with using () both to disambiguate terms within the wikipedia, and to denote special pages which are not encyclopedia articles, is that we don't want people to accidentally miss this distinction and start using the standard encyclopedia article namespace for user pages, or for talking about articles, etc.
Making the distinction as clear as possible is and important goal -- in my opinion more important than simplifying the way namespaces are handled in the code.
That said, I think we can and should look at ways to make the current interface more self explanatory, so that the links help users make the necessary distinction between wikipedia and the necessary wikipedia related pages.
Yours Mark
I would actually suggest that we try somehow to change the "look and feel" of the special namespaces, so that people will just SEE the distinction as they browse through our site.
I think that's what is bugging me about the "()", in a way. Talk pages are not just a variant of encyclopedia articles, they're something else entirely, even though they use the same interface and syntax. The hardwired ":" character makes a clear distinction between the pages types, while "()" does not. There are already some articles with "()" in the name, and I'm afraid the talk, wikipedia and user pages would blend into each other again if we stop using the ":".
The fundamental problem I have with using () both to disambiguate terms within the wikipedia, and to denote special pages which are not encyclopedia articles, is that we don't want people to accidentally miss this distinction and start using the standard encyclopedia article namespace for user pages, or for talking about articles, etc.
I agree that the special namespaces should be distingushed more from the encyclopedia pages. Again, this is more a layout problem than anything else. How about marking the namespace part of the title in red, of italics?
The namespace display should also be updated. The link to the Talk namespace should probably get a special position, or an icon or something.
I think Larry agrees with me that hardwireing is a *good* thing to sepetate the actual articles from the "surrounding" pages. That was *one* of the reasons we made meta.wikipedia.com, right?
Magnus
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
I would actually suggest that we try somehow to change the "look and feel" of the special namespaces, so that people will just SEE the distinction as they browse through our site.
I think that's what is bugging me about the "()", in a way. Talk pages are not just a variant of encyclopedia articles, they're something else entirely, even though they use the same interface and syntax. The hardwired ":" character makes a clear distinction between the pages types, while "()" does not. There are already some articles with "()" in the name, and I'm afraid the talk, wikipedia and user pages would blend into each other again if we stop using the ":".
Yes! So Mark is right, here: the other namespaces need some different sort of look and feel. Different background colors, anyway, something like that.
I agree that the special namespaces should be distingushed more from the encyclopedia pages. Again, this is more a layout problem than anything else. How about marking the namespace part of the title in red, of italics?
The namespace part of the URL doesn't have to appear in the title at all (as it doesn't for special: pages--odd); in fact, probably shouldn't since it's so ugly. But maybe there should be some indication on the page of how to link to the page, perhaps just below the title. Maybe something like this:
[=+[=+Talk section+=]+=] <-- This is a distinctive talk section header Philosophy <-- page name (link to this page with <aColor>[[talk:Philosophy]]</aColor>) <--notice
The namespace display should also be updated. The link to the Talk namespace should probably get a special position, or an icon or something.
Yes, clearly some special treatment. One shouldn't need to know that, in order to talk about an article, one should click on the "Talk" link (the reader might well say: "Gee, is that a link or cryptic green colored text?") that follows "Other namespaces" ("What the hell is a namespace? Nothing I'd be interested in, because I don't even know what 'namespace' means.")
I think Larry agrees with me that hardwireing is a *good* thing to sepetate the actual articles from the "surrounding" pages. That was *one* of the reasons we made meta.wikipedia.com, right?
Right! As I said when it was being made, I wouldn't be entirely averse to there being a meta: namespace--as long as the meta: namespace had a separate Recent Changes page.
Larry
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Mark Christensen wrote:
Why? This would keep the software and the interface simple and more consistent. Look at the links to namespaces at the bottom of pages. Sometimes there is none, sometimes one, sometimes two. Why is that? And why on earth is the link to a discussion page called a namespace? And why is there no Talk page for SpecialPages?
I think constancy is not the solution, it's the problem.
I agree with this--different pages (or classes of pages) have different functions and we need those functions really clearly indicated.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org