Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
On 21/12/05, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, people sometimes say they want to develop new namespaces for references, or category-like namespaces for blogging, etc; I guess some such things could be done through wikidata, but then again, wikidata could be attached to namespaces via those same hooks. Maybe.
An excellent idea!
Image: Category: Template: Reference: *Table:* Task: Review: Poll: (AFD etc) Collection: (transclude polls; AFD)
So perhaps there could be a series of options that the bureaucrat toggles when he activates a namespace.
Ec
Hoi, The ease with which new namespaces can be created are in one way really scary. They will affect the behaviour of a project and it will be too easy to do just this. When a language version of a project decides to "go its own merry way" it may mean that the consistency in which Mediawiki works will go away. If there is one thing that should not happen is that a user on any level starts messing with namespaces without prior agreement. Using namespaces is a great way of improving our environment, it is also a sure way of making an absolute mess when this is done without careful deliberation.
I absolutely agree about the scarriness. In his message Erik speaks of the potential for 100,000 namespaces in a project, but that many would seem horribly counterproductive. The present 256 limit for the number of namespaces in a project seems more than enough, and in welcoming the namespace management concept it was still with that limit in mind. If any project approaches that limit it's in need of serious self-examination. Namespaces need to serve a useful function.
I find the willingness of people to keep designing new templates carry enough. They may very well save a lot of time for their inverntors and a few of their close collaborators. More often when that person leaves the project we are left to wonder just what these templates are doing, particularly if they form a series of nested templates.
The English Wikipedia is "leading" the way and it does not ask itself what the consequences are for the other language versions of the project. People mistake our mission, to create a great encyclopaedia with a stable encyclopaedia or a validated encyclopaedia. They are not necessarily the same thing. The Wiki way is about doing a good thing in a simple way and in a collaborative way. When we make what we do too complicated it loses the attributes what makes it work. Some people are of the opinion that Wikipedia has a "sufficient" size and to those people I want to point out that the sh.wikipedia for instance has *2,321* http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics articles. That does not suffice.
The other side of that is that the en:wikipedia should not need to stand still waiting for everybody else to catch up.
Ec