Requests for comment/Standardize ProofreadPage namespaces across Wikisources

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for any of the proposed changes. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rationale edit

The $wgProofreadPageNamespaceIds variable in the WMF configuration file "InitialiseSettings.php" shows different pairs of Page/Index namespace numbers. Instead, using the same ids would increase consistency and make easier to develop Proofread-related gadgets and user scripts that work on every Wikisource edition.

However, this would require several technical changes by administrators to work flawlessly, so a very broad consensus is needed from all language communities.

Please comment on the options below. See task T74525.

Options edit

Keep the current system edit

  1. Oppose Oppose per proposal. --Ricordisamoa 16:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Question Question: What is the disadvantage of keeping the current system? Wouldn't it be more flexible if gadgets and user scripts (if they need to know the namespace numbers at all) query them on the fly via the api or via a function to be added to the ext.proofreadpage jQuery module? --UV (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A JSON query is more expensive than mw.config.get('wgFormattedNamespaces'); anyway, this doesn't solve the consistency issue. --Ricordisamoa 21:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Comment Comment currently is very confusing the way that those custom namespaces are named, but the system already supports Index: and Page: like Project: does on each Wikimedia wiki. Some gadgets relies on namespace number for unknown reasons, making very difficult to import from one Wikisource to another, but I'm unsure if the server impact is lower than it benefits. oldwikisource:User:Nemo bis/wgNamespaceAliases might be of interest, but must be updated to list new subdomains created since it's last edit. Lugusto 21:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    &S current namespace used by pt.wikisource, Galeria: isn't the best language option, only a reuse from a previous custom namespace that ended with no usage. If this RfC results on any changes please ping me back to ask the local community if they want to adopt the correct wording (Índice:). The change has never asked or even tried because we from thinks that the resulting server impact may be deny any devs willing to make this change. Lugusto 21:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Question Question: shouldn't we go further and standardize all the namespaces in the wikisources ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 07:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is also a good point. I saw that the "author" namespace, apart from having a different number, doesn't always have a "Author:" alias; so to refer to it in some subdomains, you need to know either the number, or the local name, which can be difficult to find out and may be difficult to type due to diacritics, non-Latin alphabets etc. Establishing the "Author" alias, and any other alias that can be missing, should be the first thing to do towards standardization. Candalua (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Candalua: not every edition has a dedicated "Author" namespace: s:de:Dante Alighieri. Should we enforce it? --Ricordisamoa 02:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They would never agree, I'm afraid. But at least all the editions that have the author namespace should have the alias too. Candalua (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Comment Comment Surely it would have been better to use the same namespace numbers from the beginning, but I think now it's too late to change. Anyway, assuming that we want to use the "most common ones" for all subdomains, can you, Ricordisamoa, prepare a list of all the changes that would be necessary to reach that situation? That would help us understand if your proposal is viable. Candalua (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose keeping the existing numbers. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose per proposal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use the same ids

250 / 252 edit

The default ones.

  1. Neutral Neutral If namespace ids are changed, it should be for these numbers that are the ids reserved by ProofreadPage. Ids in the range 100-120 are reserved for custom namespaces not managed by extensions and Page: and Index: doesn't fit into this category. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tpt (talk)
  2. Support Support This will mean our JS/CSS is reusable for non-Wikimedia wikis using ProofreadPage. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Support -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Support Per non. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

104 / 106 edit

By far the most common ones, used by en.wikisource and other 22 wikis.

  1. Oppose Oppose These numbers are based on the order of creation on English Wikisource - other Wikisources added namespaces in different orders. We should all change, together. The larger communities will fix bugs sooner, so they *should* change, so that the smaller communities can adopt their revised JS/CSS/etc. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose per JayV above -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

102 / 104 edit

Used by de.wikisource and other 5 wikis.

  1. Oppose Oppose – neither the standard, nor the most used. --Ricordisamoa 21:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose per my oppose for English Wikisources defaults. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose per JayV above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other pairs edit

  1. ...

Comments and questions edit

  1. What are the technical challenges to move one or more namespace to a new number? Yann (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing the server-side configuration file is easy, but many programs (including gadgets, templates and bots) are specifically relying on namespace numbers: thus, all involved users (mainly developers and administrators) should be notified about the changes and edit their code accordingly. But I think it's worth it. --Ricordisamoa 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is it a problem if there are "gaps" in the numbers? Suppose one namespace somewhere is moved from 102 to 104, and 102 becomes unused: does this creates problems? Also, would it be possible to make 102 a "redirect" to 104? Candalua (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, it.wikisource has no namespaces from 111 (Index talk) to 828 (Module) and I don't think this is causing problems. AFAIK, it is possible to create aliases for namespace names, but not for numbers. --Ricordisamoa 15:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ricordisamoa: Changing the server-side configuration file is easy: yes, but updating the database is not. There are big database tables to edit. That's an operation that may take a while. So, it's definitively not "easy". Tpt (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. How long would the technical break last? Wieralee (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're going to take an approach chosen to reduce such break. --Dereckson (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]