Wikipedia:Portal namespace (setting-up debate)

A namespace is a type of page in a wiki project. Page names with prefixes are probably associated with a category. Each wiki using the MediaWiki software has 16+2 namespaces: the main namespace, where page names have no prefix, 15 auxiliary types, each with its own prefix, and two pseudo-namespaces.

For more information on what a namespace is see: Wikipedia:Namespace and Help:Namespace.

Recently the English Wikipedia has imported the idea of Portals from the Polish and German Wikipedias. The idea of a Portal is to help readers and/or editors to manoeuvre their way through Wikipedia. These range from Portal:Cricket (which is designed just with readers in mind) to Wikiportals such as Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Art or Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Archaeology (see Wikipedia:Wikiportal for a full list).

Because of their reader element, they need to be accessible to readers - which suggests they should be in the main articlespace. However, they are not articles. The editor-related element of some of the Portals suggest they could go in Wikipediaspace, but no reader should ever have to go to Wikipediaspace.

The easy solution would be to have a separate Portalspace, which could develop its own customs, and could be linked to from articlespace. A pseudo-Portalspace has already developed on the German and Polish Wikipedias, and the Portal:Cricket page is already in a pseudo-Portalspace. However, by formalising the concept of a Portalspace we could make sure that Portals do not go in the article count, and that, by having talk pages of the form Portal talk:Cricket rather than [[Talk:Portal:Cricket]] they are clearly distinguished from the readerspace.

I understand from the developers that creating a new formal Portalspace is easy (we just need to move any articles beginning with "Portal:" whilst it is being done - and so far there is only one such page). However, they would like to know if there is consensus for such a new Portalspace before proceeding. So this page has been developed to see if such a consensus can be formed.

Note that there is also a similar discussion to this on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. This page, however, is a formal proposal, jguk 17:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please add your comments on the proposal that we have a formal Portalspace below

I give my full support. – ABCD 17:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bug report filled as Bug #2113. – AB CD 17:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) Approve. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 17:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) Approve, not sure if I'd use the portals, but I can see their use --SPUI (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) Wholly approve. The namespace must receive the same colour background as the main namespace. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) It's clear many would apply the article standards to portals if they were simply put in the main namespace, and reject them on those grounds. A new namespace would allow for new rules. JRM · Talk 21:40, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
(Support) Approve. Ausir 00:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) DO IT. Nickptar 01:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support) Good idea, but don't move the Main Page. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
(Support) This would be a valuable feature to have in Wikipedia. тəzєті 01:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
(Oppose) Objection - useless namespace cruft. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:41, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
(Support) Why? For every other page, "X:Y" turns into "X talk:Y". For portals, "X:Y" is turning into "Talk:X:Y". This is completely illogical. Support for custom namespaces is already in the code and it works perfectly. r3m0t ^talk 09:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Because you can't have a vote where everyone's in agreement, you groupthinking zombie you! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:55, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
(Support) It doesn't hurt anyone and makes things less cluttered. Sounds fine by me Broken Segue 03:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly support. This is my favoured approach to pages that are neither articles nor pure process support. --Theo (Talk) 10:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support or Approve or whatever. Jon the Geek 17:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
With so many words for "Support" being used I've added a standard pair (Support/Oppose) to each comment for clarity. ed g2s • talk 18:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ed g2s • talk 18:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Support). Namespacecruft could be a problem and creation of new namespaces should not be taken lightly, but this is one instance where a seperate namespace is helpful. I'd even go so far as to suggest moving the Main Page into portalspace (Portal:Main Page) for consistency. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could confuse new users. Perhaps Main Page could transclude Portal:Main Page, but then What's The Point(tm)?. Nickptar 14:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I definitely think we need reader portals, and they can certainly be good in "Portal:" I think there's also a need for other kind of encyclopedic "Meta-matter" that is related to articles and article content but not the project or site itself. We have Wikipedia: for our project and site issues, but things like topic guides, smartly-written (not auto-generated) article directories, these reader portals, even study questions and guides (which other encyclopedias definitely include) could live in this meta-space. I'm not supporting "Portal:" at this time because I'd prefer not to end up with "Portal:", "Topic:", "Directory:", "Study:" etc. Demi ^T/_C 19:26, 2005 May 9 (UTC) ((I should clarify that what I'm saying is, there is a need for a "portalspace" but I think the name "Portal:" is too specific to the WikiPortal application proposed Demi ^T/_C 03:34, 2005 May 10 (UTC)))
- Note: Topic:, Directory:, Study: are not being proposed here. I don't understand what they would be used for. Portal: is for a very specific purpose: avoiding self-references while increasing functionality for readers. From what I can divine, Topic: is basically a category, and I cannot imagine that either of the other two would fit in with WP:WIN. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A topic guide is a hand-written guide to learning about a piece of material that incorporates, summarizes and references other material in the same volume. There's certainly nothing in WP:WIN that says that Wikipedia can't be a study guide--certainly other encyclopedias contain both topic guides and study questions. A directory is a hand-written (and therefore informative) directory to articles of particular interest: we use Wikipedia: pages, categories and "List of" articles for this currently, depending on the application, but they all have their weaknesses (Wikipedia: articles can't be linked from the main namespace; "List of" articles should really be lists of the items themselves, not the articles, and Category: pages are inflexible (they always have the autogenerated list; indeed that's their purpose). Category:Spoken articles is, for example, the kind of the thing that would go into a hand-constructed directory. These all need a place to go where they "avoid self-reference" yet "increase functionality for users." Demi ^T/_C 03:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    - Then a topic guide is a wikibook. I don't see that any of the other points are applicable, personally. The spoken articles category is only applicable with reference to Wikipedia, and I don't see any of the other points applying in this discussion. What you're saying sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that you believe none of this information belongs in Wikipedia, yet "reader portals" do. That's fine. I'm sorry to say, however, I don't understand what you mean by a "slippery slope," as all I'm saying is that I think "WikiPortals" only is too tight a restriction on article-related metaspace. Demi ^T/_C 22:28, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
        Right, ok. I thought you were quoting these as namespaces that would need to be included if Portal: was. I understand now. Thanks, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would definitely help readers and would also help editors find Wikiprojects and related topics. Wikiacc 21:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Kind of similar functionality to Categories. Maybe those could just be expanded instead? - Omegatron 23:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Support. How soon can we do it? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also move Main Page to Portal:main. -MarSch 16:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Neutrality^talk 16:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Might I ask why?
Support on the conditionthat you stop making up compoundwords where a perfectlygood alternative exists. We're not speaking German here you know. What's wrong with "portal namespace"? -- Tim Starling 09:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- OK - I'll try not to use compound words like Portalspace or namespace:) jguk 09:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Main Page in portalspace

Comment: For those voting to support this, do you think the main page should be moved to the portalspace? And if so why not, surely it's a portal page. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:56, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
- Oppose this, it could confuse new users ("what does this Portal thing mean on the front page?"). If you were really a purist, Main Page could be nothing but a transclude of Portal:Main, but I don't see the point of that. Nickptar 02:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; namespaces confused me when I was a newbie. Main Page is an accurate and sufficient description of the main page, and there it should remain to avoid complication. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Would you mind telling me then what's the point of this proposed portal namespace if not to include portals, seems like a pretty weak suggestion if the ones making aren't even going to follow it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:15, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    - It would include portals other than the main page. Nickptar 04:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per my comment above - I don't see why this would confuse anyone, sorry. I think most people access the main page by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/ or clicking on the big wikipedia logo. The URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page , where you end up, isn't particularily non-confusing either. It doesn't have to be called Portal:Main Page, maybe Portal:Main or Portal:Index would be better. The only reason against it I agree on would be that it breaks a few bookmarks, and a redirect handles that. But basically, what we are discussing here is the portal namespace, and a move of this caliber requires a more detailed discussion elsewhere, after we made it clear that we even want the namespace this move depends on. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - URL confusion isn't the issue; the issue is people going to Wikipedia and saying "What's this big 'Portal' thing on the page mean?" I'm not sure it's really that big a deal, though. Nickptar 18:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: the existing community portal is a much better candidate for this. (Am I missing something or is this really obvious?) --Phil | Talk 08:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - You're missing that both can be in portalspace. ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - having Main Page in the article space is entirely anomolous, not to mention its Camel Case title. We can redirect Main Page to Portal:Main. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Move to Portal:main. -MarSch 16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! тəzєті 23:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Main Page it is, and Main Page is what it will stay as far as I'm concerned—not Main page, Portal:Main Page, Portal:Main page or Portal:Main. It's no longer MainPage because that was a crime against humanity, but I see no benefit to further renaming. Of course, from a purely practical point of view, I don't give a rat's ass, and will politely shrug my shoulders if a majority thinks it's a good idea. JRM · Talk 00:54, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  - Comment. Maybe if there was only Main Page, but there is also Main Page (table free) and Main Page (text only). Should they be in article space also? -MarSch 11:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausir 08:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Never. Neutrality^talk 16:29, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Rationale, Ben? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support having the new "main page" be "Portal:Main" (and http://en.wikipedia.org/ HTTP-redirects there) but Main Page should be a redirect to that page for bookmarkers. Not doing that would be shooting ourselves in the foot for no good reason--we don't need "Main Page" for anything else. Demi ^T/_C 17:03, 2005 May 14 (UTC)