Namespace nomination

This is a list only of nominations; no doubt they are not all agreed upon. They'll need to be voted upon at some point.

for all the API stuff
for all the In-Game books
for all the Category:Faction:xxx and the like (under debate, no doubt)
(preferably not Formulas), for Category:Formulas and game mechanics and all its articles, conveniently all starting with Formulas:
so that each guild might have some subpages (if they wish), such as especially Riddle, since then each page with a slash would contain a link to the main guild page (like User:D. F. Schmidt/Paia)
for all the HOWTOs articles, or maybe this would best fit under API?
(again not Items) For holding the straight game info for the item not any articles.
for all the servers (already they all start with Server:), for the same reason as guild
This is because they are all named after in game places as well. And adding the Server: allows for an article that focouses on the server and not the thing the server is named after. --BaldMonkey 00:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EDT)
UI modifications, other information
for all the Category:Zone:xxx categories (under debate)
I'm not sure Zone should really be a namespace in and of its self. I will admit I've not looked at that the zone sections all that much yet but from what I've seen I don't even understand why they all start with "Zone:". Seems like it should have been something like...
--BaldMonkey 21:18, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Namespace Debate

I would like to take this a step further and suggest we create a few custom namespaces (will need admins to do this) to help store the game information. One such namespace would logically be "Items". This will allow for the creation of a page like [[Item:Ironfeather]] that contains no info on how the item is used in game and only the statistics for said item. For something as small is "Ironfeather" it might not seem like much till you think about the fact that we can include how much it sells to a vendor for as well as people can use the Special:Whatlinkshere to quickly find articles that talk about "Ironfeather".

I have thought about maybe having a "Quest" name space but I cannot think of why something like really would be anything other than something like Category:Quests with each quest walkthrough listed as an article maybe broken down into subcategories based on Faction (Horde, Alliance, or Both) and maybe then Class and Profession quests as well.

Another area however that would likely benefit greatly from it's own name space would the API section! They have it organized very nice and I'm really worried about even suggesting that it be moved to a new name space as the work it would generate would be huge! However just for the sheer size of the API area it would probably do well to act as a "sister" to WoWWiki maybe WoWDevWiki or something. The only problem with having the API area as seperat project is that it removed the ability to link to pages here on WoWWiki. Unless the admins want to set up Interwiki linking.

--BaldMonkey 15:55, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Yes! API definitely needs its own namespace. How could it be that much more work? Hmm. I guess you'd have to change all the links to [[API:whatever]]. Maybe there's software that could find and replace. Does anyone know? - Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Added the <nowiki> for ya :-) and I think the problem would be cutting and pasting all the pages to the new namespace as from what I can tell there is way to move pages between namespaces. For that mater I can't even move a page for the sake of simply renaming like I have tried to do to help reduce some of the silly REDIRECTS that are being used.
Have the admins gone on vacation cause I only see two listed and to the best of my knowledge for alot of this sort of stuff we really need them to make some changes on the source files on the server.
--BaldMonkey 17:48, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
[LAISREN] Note that I already, experimentally, started adding Namespace prefixes for some articles; as an example, see (e.g. Guild List (UI); Raid List (UI); Spellbook (UI)...), but it never really caught on. There is some disagreement if it's better to use Namespaces (e.g. Guild:<guild-name>) or parenthetical tags (e.g. <guild-name> (Guild))...
[LAISREN] Please see also my proposal for Article types at WoWWiki:Article_type, as it bears directly on the overall consistent categorization strategy you're aiming for.
[LAISREN] The biggest problem at this point is the consistent, retroactive adoption of any categorization attempts we might want to make. It's far to easy to end up with inconsistent implementation, especially as the number of articles grows...
[LAISREN] Just some thoughts to mull over. - Laisren 21:14, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Making a page and starting it with something like "UI:" does not make it a namespace. The article will still fall in tot he same realm as all the other articles it will just start with a "UI:". The main reason to use a name space would be to set the information apart from the normal flow of articles. In my request for an "Item" name space I would like to have this because that area has no need to be categorized. In the namespace each entry would simply by [[Item:item name]] with the item name being typed in the way it is seen in game (for the purpose of capitalization. This will give a referance for people to link to items from atricles with out having to link to Thott and Allakhzam all the time. Something like the Faction and Zone area just doesn't really make sense with out more of an explination for why it should be a name space rather than a category listing of articles that related to that topid.
In the end it seems to me the largest issue here is that there was never any struture layed out for the categories and this has cause the problem of people placing items where ever they felt they should be. This sort of problem can be limited by a better front page design that makes available links to the root level Cagetgories for people to then start from. So in the end there might be listed on the front page links like Category:Items Category:Zones Category:Bestiary Category:UI. Using the links there people can then drill down and look for related articles in that category. The articles can be called what ever they want to so that if they coss over more than one category they can be simply be listed on more than one category.
What would hapen if someone Wanted to write and article about a mod that helps the lag in IronForge? If the named it "UI:IF_Mod" that sort of limits it to belonging in the UI category yet it might well be of use to poeple looking in the Zone subcategory of Category:Iron Forge since the article does relate to that as well. And maybe that Mod works by causing all the people in the zone to look like murlocs and mybe they feel it should also be listed in the [:Category:Beastiary]] area. Does that make sense about why pulling everything into a seperat name space doesn't work?
As for consistant Implementation that is why at the root of the categories I would suggest doing like I did with the Items page and creating a road map of how it all fits together. Will everyone that make an article know right where to put it? Probly not but the people that are here and working on the site alot will be able to move things to the correct area.
--BaldMonkey 22:21, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I basically agree about the Zone thing, but since someone else before me had the idea, and I couldn't think of a really solid reason to change it, I didn't propose it. I couldn't give two hoots about it either way, altogether, except the flow of writing article text. It's easier without the blasted Zone: prefix. Faction is a similar situation too. But what about Item? Why would it be a good idea especially? Many items that fall in a series, like metals, cloths, potions, and other things should not belong to an Item namespace, right?

As zones go, I think we should make templates such as I already have, for metals, cloths, herbs, and such others. I could work on a list of zones sometime soon if anyone wants me to. My vision is to have a list by level of the lands according to continent, but maybe by dominating faction is better, or by some other order. Anyone have ideas about this? Schmidt talk 22:44, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Here is a quick example of what and entry in the "Item" namespace would look like [[WoWWiki:Itemexample|Itemexample]]. I understand that I placed the item into the WoWWiki namespace. I did this simply to keep it from messing up the main name space. If this example is folloed items in a series would really be irlevent since each item will have an entry all on its own. This will allow people to write something like this...
This [[WoWWiki:Itemexample|Itemexample]] is really the best item this class can have because the strong stat bonus really helps the character kick much booty.
Note that there was no need to link to Allakhazam for the stat information as we now have that on this site and no mater what the item it will be easy to find since it will simply be [[Item:itemname]] everytime where all people will need to do is replace the itemname with the name from the game. The extra bonus of having the item in its own name space allows for peole to write an article about the item calling it simply itemexample. And since there are well over 10,000 items in the game this will allow the Allpages page to still be useable as it will not get clogged with 10,000 item listings.
--BaldMonkey 00:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I understand the reasoning behind what you want to do with that there, but it doesn't completely make sense to me. As you say on [[wowwiki talk:itemexample]], we would still want a link to the same item on thottbot or allakhazam, and the same information is held there. So why really bother? Hmm. Actually, what I just thought about is using a template for the tooltip information. That wouldn't be altogether practical though. But what other option?
Basically, it's like this: we have item information here so that people can look at it. People can look at it at Thottbot or Allak, so why put it here? Because here, anyone can annotate the item, saying This is how you get it; This is how practical it is; With this item, you want to use these tactics, etc. That's our advantage, and we don't have morons posting stupid questions, or if they do, we can delete the question (bad idea overall, unless the question is over-the-top stupid) and post the answer.
And since I mentioned item series, like the cloths and herbs and such, we could just do exactly what I've done about that (just make a series). Brilliant! Haha. Anyways, as item and quest links go, though, I wish more people would use template:item and template:quest, since those link internally and externally (to thottbot, but this could be deprecated in favor of another template which would also include a link to allakhazam) for this purpose, more or less. Where was I going with this? Schmidt talk 00:17, 2 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Okay I've tried to make something of an example about one use that I had in mind might work ItemUse Example. This is just what I've come up with and I'm sure in time others will come up with more and better uses. --BaldMonkey 17:48, 2 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I think I understand exactly what you're thinking, now. Check out user talk:BaldMonkey/ItemUse for my experiment and conclusion. What we could do is have an item namespace, and on each of those pages, it might (whatever the preference is) link to Alla and Thot for more details (where it drops, etc.) See your [[wowwiki:itemexample]] for what I'm talking about. Schmidt talk 00:18, 3 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I think the even grander plan I have for getting the items listed in their own namespace was so that they entry could be used sort of like adding an image to text. Maybe someone could create an add on that would allow people to assign a width they would like for that page and such.
Also while we could very well make the item pages and just have them start with "Item:" I would like to have them in a space seperate from the main articles the way the images are seperate from the main articles. It helps with some of the back end functions when running the Wiki.
--BaldMonkey 19:56, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Namespace Criteria

This seems like a topic that should definitely be decided on to bring some order to the site. Perhaps the decision would be clearer if there were a clear set of criteria for justifying a separate namespace. I would propose:

  1. WoWWiki development, media and navigation
    • WoWWiki:, Talk:, User:, Image: and Category: namespaces
  2. Classes of items which would create large numbers of title conflicts
    • The server names are the best example of this category.
    • BaldMonkey's proposal for item stats pages, separate from general articles about items, would also fall under this category.
  3. Very large numbers of pages on a specialized, self-contained topic.
    • API is the only portion of the site I can see meeting this definition.

Because it creates clutter and increases the difficulty of linking, other than for those reasons, it would be preferable not to create a separate namespace. It shouldn't be used simply as a method of categorization, since categories are better at that job, as BaldMonkey explained above. Articles also shouldn't begin with a pseudo-namespace prefix that doesn't correspond to a genuine namespace.

Of the list above, I would object to creating separate namespaces for :Books, Factions, Formulas and Game Mechanics, Guilds, How-to articles, Zones.

--Aeleas 16:32, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)

(Quote@Aeleas): " It shouldn't be used simply as a method of categorization, since categories are better at that job, as BaldMonkey explained above. "

Good point.

(Quote@Aeleas): "WoWWiki development, media and navigation
-WoWWiki:, Talk:, User:, Image: and Category: namespaces"

Don't forget the Help: namespace...

-Laisren 21:17, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

As for wiki-specific help pages, the WoWWiki namespace should cover it. The Help namespace should be reserved for WoW-related stuff. Do you see my meaning? It's difficult to state it any other way for me right now. Besides, I don't feel that strongly about it. It just makes sense to me. Schmidt 23:39, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

Re-opening the debate for development (API, etc) pages

Whee, half a year old, it's getting a bit stale. But here goes:

(Adding a heads-up on this to a couple of admin talk pages too; I suspect that this page has disappeared out of people's watchlists by now ;))

I was pondering this just earlier today -- what a coincidence :-) The development pages really do want their own namespace; for several reasons:

  • It'd be a logical umbrella for all the development information -- there's NO common denominator between "Interface Customization" pages, "Function Libraries", "World of Warcraft API", the XML documentation, etc...
  • No longer having to put "API_" before things makes category sort keys suddenly useful. No more 15 pages of "(A contd..)".
  • If we change names like "API_FontString_GetFont" into "API:FontString/GetFont", and hope that pigs start flying and we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.6, we can suddenly do very interesting things with {{BASEPAGENAME}} and {{SUBPAGENAME}} to make navigation much easier.

And, yes, this would take a script to do, or a trained monkey. Since I'm fairly fluent in the majority of scripting languages out there, and really suck at monkey training, I'm offering to do the former. It would be a HTTP hammering script that'd take a while to run if I do it - I obviously don't have server shell access, and I'm not sure I want it either :-).

--Mikk 13:28, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Whoops, I suppose I should suggest a namespace name too. "API" won't cut it, obviously. Aeuhm... "Devel:"? Can't really come up with anything else short enough... --Mikk 13:31, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
How about just "Dev:"? Is that too short? Hmmm... how about "WoWUIDev:"? Is that too long? I know there is some agitation at connecting API stuff with UI, but ultimately all the API info listed at WoWWiki is to present something different in the UI via APIs provided to users. We don't actually give info for all WoW APIs, such as those sneaky folks running private servers might use. Am I right? Anyway, my 2Copper. --Fandyllic 4:07 PM PDT 26 May 2006
"Dev:" is just about right :-) When I'm looking for documentation on an API, I often just type the URL rather than clicking my way up to it -- it's faster. So short is good. --Mikk 05:00, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
So why DONT you like API? -- Flickering 14:44, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
Gogo split discussions. :-) I've explained this on User talk: Mikk right below your recent responses to me. --Mikk 14:59, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Achievement Namespace?

I vote for the inclusion of one. Inv misc orb 04Xavius, the Satyr Lord 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.