Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
On 21/12/05, Rowan Collins
<rowan.collins(a)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