Last modified: 2011-11-19 09:11:06 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 10647 - Allow more than two namespaces to be "grouped" like article/talk spaces are
Allow more than two namespaces to be "grouped" like article/talk spaces are
Status: REOPENED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.11.x
All All
: Low enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-20 02:54 UTC by Ferdia O'Brien
Modified: 2011-11-19 09:11 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Ferdia O'Brien 2007-07-20 02:54:55 UTC
Sorry if this isn’t done correctly but this is easily the most confusing and counterintuitive system I've ever used.

I think that articles within Wikipedia should have a third page, to supplement "Article" and "Talk", I think this third page should have a name such as "Repository" and that the purpose of the page should be to  storE all information, that is known on the topic, that doesnt fit the specifications of the article, such as layout etc., in an organised fashion.

The advantage is that the article would hold all available information (provided it is still referenced) on the topic, while leaving the article clutter free. In the event of an issue arising where there is disfigurement over the validity of information in the main article, it could simply be put in the Repository.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2007-07-20 15:10:44 UTC
Unclear requirements specification.
Comment 2 Ferdia O'Brien 2007-07-20 18:55:09 UTC
Well instead of furthering the futility of this system, why not tell me what it is you want?
Comment 3 Rob Church 2007-07-20 18:57:50 UTC
1. Exactly what is it you envision users storing
2. How do you envision it being presented

Note that there are perennial proposals for a multitude of raw data stores, few of which get implemented; Semantic MediaWiki is probably the grandest exception to this, although still very tailored towards academic thinkers - users typically don't want to bother defining entire relations to get a task done.
Comment 4 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-20 19:02:17 UTC
A few problems here:

1) This would be a large software change.  A lot of stuff assumes that each page has an article page and a discussion page, and that each article page has exactly one talk page and vice versa.

2) There's no clear benefit to justify the effort needed to make it possible.

3) You haven't gotten approval from the Wikipedia community for this, so it certainly won't be enabled on Wikipedia even if it's added to the software.

I would suggest that when namespaces are revamped for a namespace manager, which I'm thinking of doing at some point if no one else will, a more generalized system be put in place than the article/talk dichotomy, or at least the basis for a more generalized system.  I'm refocusing this bug to that purpose.  I'm assuming here that all you're asking for is more flexible namespace associations, and you aren't asking for any special functionality to be added to the new namespace (i.e., it will behave like a secondary article page in all respects).
Comment 5 Ferdia O'Brien 2007-07-20 19:18:36 UTC
Thats not REALLY what I ment, heres the reponce I was writting to Rob Church questions:

Basically, the articles in Wikipedia are designed to hold all the information which is most pertinent to a subject; it has restrictions such as article length, conciseness, NPOV etc. What I have seen in my time here, is that information gets left out of the article, in the name of keeping it interesting, concise, presentable, etc. But what about all the other information on the topic, which is what a user with a SPECIFIC interest in the topic, not just a general interest, may want? I propose that this data, is placed in a Repository laid out similar to an article, except that EVERYTHING that is known on the topic gets to be involved, it’s like the article but with as much information as we can provide.

Presentation wise, it could be laid out in the same style as an article (references and all), but that it could be indexed somehow (chronologically, alphanumerically, etc, depending on the topic at hand). Also, this layout could be done by code, i.e. adding tags to the top of the repository such as {SORT=ALPHABETICAL} or however you think this would be best.

An advantage of information repositories would be that we could do away with new articles, which are just lists that are related to other articles (like lists of episodes of shows, which are just there to link to another article, which is about the specific episode. Instead, the lists could go in the repository.

Another advantage, as I mentioned in my original report, is that if information is in dispute (POV wise not reference wise, which should still be enforced), could be moved into the repository, until it is sorted out on the talk page (which the repository wouldn’t need, as it’s just an organised data store).

Just write back if you want to know more, I really think this would help Wikipedia a lot.
Comment 6 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-20 19:24:30 UTC
Keep in mind that this is a tracker for software requests.  Wikipedia is not directly at issue here.  Even if this is one unified concept from the perspective of Wikipedia, developmentally there seem to be separate pieces of functionality you're asking for, and each one needs its own bug report.  If there are specific things you want added to the software other than allowing a third namespace put alongside article/talk, such as automatic sortability, please open a separate bug so those can be addressed separately.
Comment 7 Ferdia O'Brien 2007-07-20 19:27:59 UTC
Ive just submitted the idea at the village pump in Wikipedia, to see what the reaction to the idea is, I'm awair that this is a mediawiki system, but as Wikipedia is the only MediaWiki site I use, thats where the idea comes from, but the advantages I mentioned, would help an encyclopedia using MediaWiki.
Comment 8 Conrad Irwin 2010-04-25 00:45:07 UTC
This would be useful, both en-wiktionary, and en-wikinews hack a third namespace in with Javascript.

Places it would be useful:

Entry/Discussion/Citations (enwikt)
Entry/Discussion/Comments (ennews)
Template/Discussion/Documentation (anywhere?)

Yes, it's a big change, but wow it'd be cool.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links