On 11-09-20 10:54 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
On 21/09/11 05:39, K. Peachey wrote:
Since no one seems to have sent this to the ML
and to draw wider
attention:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Extension_namespace_registration#Social_…
It would help to post a summary on wikitech. I am not sure lot of
people will want to read the thirteen paragraphs at that URL, I
personally skipped it :-D
TL;DR version:
- Random user comments that sites could use a defined place to safely
declare custom namespaces and points out that as of writing nothing was
inside the 500-599 range.
- A few other users chime in that it's a good idea.
- One user chimes in that it would be a good idea to notify the mailing
lists, however no-one does this.
- About a year later one of the users comes back and declares that since
no-one objected 500-599 is reserved for site namespaces.
- A few months later as part of porting some of ArmchairGM's/Wikia's
extensions marks off on the page that the BlogPage extension has been
using 500-501 for awhile.
- The user that declared 500-599 for site-namespaces comes back and
reverts Jack's edit.
- Jack starts a discussion on the talkpage. Also comments on the
sillyness of 500-599 being 'the' site-specific range.
- User says the matter was open for discussion for 11 months, comments
on that page being a 'reservation system' etc...
- Jack comments on how practically no-one namely us developers even knew
about that discussion, and how no matter what the page says the code in
svn is still using those namespaces.
- After a few other comments the user goes back to talking about
'rules', '[talking] to someone [of] authority', saying the range was
'duly registered by prior agreement'.
- Another user comments on the ridiculousness of the assertion.
The TL;DR-TL;DR version:
Uhm... User gets a big head and starts wikilawyering and reverting
people on a page that's supposed to list information rather than have
some sort of authoritative registration process, claims that things were
up for discussion when no-developer was ever really notified, no-one
really discussed it, and the whole thing was based on a false premise in
the first place.
----
I've restored the info which IS valid information. Ripped out the
registration of a site-specific range of namespaces. Added notes about
current custom site namespace practices to the page to take note of when
defining default namespaces for extensions. And renamed the page and
removed all notion of a "registration" from the page which is nothing
but a list of current practice to help extension developers avoid
creating conflicts with other extensions when they write new code.
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]