Help talk:Namespaces

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Have we decided to use the seperate namespace method to title books or shelves? While I like it, I don't remember the discussion in the staff lounge to have come to any type of conclusion.

Assuming this is decided upon as the way to go, what's involved in setting up so many namespaces? And by namespaces, I mean real namespaces, so the talk page for Cookbook:Recipes, for example, would be at Cookbook talk:Recipes, not [[Talk:Cookbook:Recipes]]. This would make inline links to other modules easier to create, as the pipe trick would work with out so much typing. For example, if I write put the oil in the [[Cookbook:wok|]], it will link to Cookbook:Wok, not Cookbook:wok.

Just some questions. Gentgeen 08:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

My reading of the conversation indicated that this was necessary for some software that was due to be installed, but I'm not sure -- apparently it may also require a return to the ugly days of CamelCase. It looks like there is a part of the conversation at some other, unspecified location. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable than I can clarify on it. I don't know what's involved in making a new namespace. TUF-KAT 05:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: I feel namespaces need little or no differentiation from each other. Since Wikibooks, once a large and teaming community, will have people devoted to various areas, I think having centralized discussion areas for things like strategy guides, field guides and biology textbooks would be a Good Thing. Namespaces could help to coordinate that. Imagine, for example, the proposed cookbook could be promoted as WikiCook or something, and could have its own main page at wikicook.org to help organize recipe submitting. TUF-KAT 05:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] software

a separate wiki instance for each book would be useful, ex. it would permit downloading of a single book. but this would require modification of the software. Badanedwa 19:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Early discussion from the Lounge

There are two methods in use to organize the elements of a textbook. One involves the use of namespaces, while the other uses plain text element titles. I think we could benefit from an early discussion of this before either technique gets spread too widely.

  1. Namespaces: Early work on Computer Programming suggests the use of a namespace for each book or major section. This reduces the problems of duplicate names. IMHO, it will also create problems with overlaps with other needed uses of namespace parameter, such as images, talk, etc. For a broader discussion of this proposed use, see Programming:Guidelines element
  2. Direct Names: Other projects underway, such as Organic Chemistry, are assigning names for their elements. IMHO this is the approach we should use, modified when necessary by some recommended technique. In Textbook considerations I called this the rule of meaningful names. When further clarification is needed we could use one of those used to differentiate Wikipedia Articles; either Exponentiation (programming) or Exponentiation in Programming as opposed to Exponentiation which belongs to Arithmetic.

A recommendation about using one of these techniques belongs in our manual of style, which Mav has started, but I thought a little discussion might be useful first. If it is not obvious, my choice is the second approach. LouI 17:56 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that we want to have the ability to use the same module in several different Wikibooks. Names that are too specific may not flow well in a Wikibook that uses modules with a "Programming" prefix with some having a "Programming" prefix and other modules under "Computing". I guess this is a vote against namespace-based organization. --mav
Hm. On second thought I think we may be forced to have some type of subpage/namespace scheme to get the WikiGroup software to work. See http://www.pmichaud.com/wiki/PmWiki/WikiGroup . Notice the page name /PmWiki/WikiGroup? The page /PmWiki/WikiGroup is part of the WikiBook named /PmWiki/DocumentationIndex,. So what we may need to do, is formalize very broad disciplines and have them act as top level organization under which many different textbooks would fall under. For example there would be Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics etc. But then we have the problem of not being able to share modules between Chemistry, Biology and Biochemistry, for example.... However, we may be able to trick the software into accepting /wiki/ or even /en/ as the top level page - then all Wikibooks would fall under that. My point is that software needs are going to ultimately be the deciding factor on the subpage/namespace issue. --mav
I've looked at the trail logic as described in WikiGroup. The function is one we can really use, but doesn't it force us back to using CamelCase, since any blank in the TOC (list) ends the reference? IMHO this is one that needs resolution and may need software or a workaround. --LouI
I'm back. It appears I'm outvoted for this, well I guess the namespace idea was good while it lasted (since the both of you seem to not like it, and 2 is more than 1)... Before I go crazy renaming everything, I'd like to know a little more about what the software needs? aka, Is there some other namespace I should drop it in?
After looking at alternatives for linking and embeedding pages and paths, I have to agree with mavs second thought. I still wish for better way, but until it is found I'll go with a namespace for each book (or closely related set of books), and with subpage (directory/page) spaces. Thanks for your attention ....LouI 18:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
When it comes to games, my area, using namespaces is the only way to go. Many games have a version for two or more systems, and once we get overlaps in the guides, we would end up in a mess. With namespaces, there is no problem. - SamE 04:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this issue has been fully resolved. Shouldn't we settle on a single, rigidly defined scheme as soon as possible for consistency's sake? Right now, we're using a whole lot of conflicting ones. Can we (please, please, please) pick one system and gradually migrate all of the books to it, or at least start all new books with it? If such a system does exist, it should be mentioned somewhere on Wikibooks:Help. -- Paullusmagnus 17:53, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Decisions:

  • How much hierarchy? (Biology:Biochemistry:Proteins:Protein folding?)
  • Title (World War II begins vs. lesson 14)
  • Book ID (Biochemistry:title vs. Biochemistry - title vs. title (Biochemistry)...)
I like the hierarchical system you proposed, and have started changing page titles (in biology) over to that system: e.g., Biology_General_biology. Note I made one change in the system you proposed: Biology_General_biology and not Biology_Generalbiology. Do not be surprised if all will not follow. Imposing any structure on these Wiki ventures is nearly impossible, but people do tend to follow if they see the utility of something - Marsh 18:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Before we change anything, let's see what others have to say about it. I only meant the first example to show what the maximum depth of hierarchy was here (and to point out that we need a way to represent it), and I think that a developer should tell us what the dangers of overloading namespaces are. But you make a good point that we shouldn't go crazy attempting to standardize module titles.
Having a v*te about module titles might be the best choice, because there are a number of possibilites that are all at least acceptable choices and standardization is the most important thing. Paullusmagnus 20:37, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Since you (or someone?) used "my" textbook Botany as an example, I had to quickly face whether I liked the changes being "proposed" I did, so I've continued the process on through Biology_Botany and some of the Biology_Cell_biology pages where the original efforts by others made the suggested style especially suitable. However, I'd not presume that it could be applied to other textbook subjects. - Marsh 03:33, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Some points, and apologies to the pages I've changed when I've missed this discussion: The need to hierachy-ize is a lilttle bit dependant on how the book is written...if you're writing about protein folding it may be relevant to put on the Protein folding page.
If there's a lot of material, to spawn a new page, one may not have to have such a hierachical title: a thing for the namespace and then the title (so Biology:Biochemistry -> Biology:Protein folding instead of Biology:Biochemistry:Protein folding) would be sufficient?
Can we vote on this soon to get consistency? Dysprosia 04:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on namespaces

I'm gonna rewrite this page so that it is a proposed policy. With the ability to have the software treat namespaces like namespaces, I think it's important to have a plan. TUF-KAT 00:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to sort of clarify, I am well-aware that this scheme will likely, even undoubtedly, change before something is more-or-less settled on. It isn't meant to be written in stone, but rather a policy to be followed until something better comes along.
I am rather excited about the idea of having a separate logo for each project. That seems cool... TUF-KAT 05:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With the current implementation, having too many custom namespaces is a bad idea - they all have to be manually entered in the MediaWiki configuration file. Also, deleting and renaming namespaces is quite a pain. So I suggest keeping the number of custom namespaces small, at least at first, maybe 5 or 6.--Eloquence

[edit] Computer Science namespace normalization

Hi, I've moved books in the namespace Computer_science and ComputerScience to the single namespace Computer_Science.

All books that would appear in some computer science department's curriculum might be appropriate for this namespace. For example, "Algorithms" and "Data Structures" belong in it, but not necessarily "Learning C#" if that book has no relation to the theory (and certainly not book like "Learning OpenOffice", which would belong under Information Technology or Computers, but not the field Computer Science). MShonle 03:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why not subpages?

It seems that using namespaces would be difficult to maintain since they have to be set in the MediaWiki configuration. Given that it is suggested to have no more than 5 or 6, that's not make too much improvement. Why not enable subpages as in Meta? Subpages would provide some improvements over the current conventions. Please read my proposal for all language domains at w:Wikibooks should use subpages. I have not receive a counter-argument yet! ManuelGR 23:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Help:Namespace

Initial text adapted from [[en:Wikipedia:Namespace]] --mav 11:14, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook and its talk namespaces: no longer false?

Seems Cookbook and its talk namespaces are no longer "false". Shouldn't we move them to the "Full list"? ("Cookbook" and "Cookbook_talk" = ns:101 and ns:102, right?) - marsian 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help_talk:Namespaces"