Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
On 21/12/05, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that I was pondering when you posted about this before is whether the "special behaviour" of namespaces like "Image:", "Category:", etc could be built into some kind of hooks mechanism. I know it seems silly, but I rather like the idea of modularising the code so that existing features can be treated as extensions, because it means extensions can be written that mimic or replace those features.
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.
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.
Thanks, GerardM