Wikipedia:Portal namespace (setting-up debate)

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

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 Portal namespace, which could develop its own customs, and could be linked to from the article namespace. A pseudo-Portal namespace has already developed on the German and Polish Wikipedias, and the Portal:Cricket page is already in a pseudo-Portal namespace. However, by formalising the concept of a Portal namespace 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 article namespace.

I understand from the developers that creating a new formal Portal namespace 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)~~ (that no longer needs to be done). However, they would like to know if there is consensus for such a new Portal namespace 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~~ Bug #1676. – 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. — Dan | Talk 01:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(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]
  - I said don't make them up, not don't use them. Namespace is a real word. -- Tim Starling 19:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support I think it's a great idea. Tuf-Kat 22:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Support - I think its a brilliant idea. BTW, when I first tryed to add this comment, I was told it redirected to Wikipedia:Portal namepace. I went there and only then could I edit. Could someone verify that it's not just me? --Celestianpower ^hab 22:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sasa Stefanovic 23:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly. We need something like that. --Dungo (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support or approve, whichever is "yes". It's the cleanest solution. Awk 01:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds like a good idea...I just wonder if we'll end up with a bunch of un-maintained portals? raylu 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I see no downside to this. Technically it's just a matter of putting an entry into a database table. If the portal builders run out of steam we've lost nothing. If they produce something exciting and useful for readers (Portal:Cricket is already close to that in my opinion) then we have a new approach to Wikipedia. Also by having the namespace and encouraging people to use it we empower them to produce new approaches to our content that we would never dream of. Which is what Wikipedia is all about. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Make a Project: namespace too while your at it. -St|eve 03:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice idea, but wouldn't work. Project:Help Desk ← that link should show you why. [[smoddy]] 18:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, we have too many namespaces as it is. R adiant _>|< 12:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. the wub "?/!" 13:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can already think of one page that should definitely be in Portal. That's List of people by name. I'm sure there are others that fit as well. Superm401 | Talk 18:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. It seems that it will be a very small namespace, but a useful one. And anyway, all this discussion gives me an excuse not to get round to implementing Portal Chemistry ;P Physchim62 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a great idea. ral 315 22:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think this could be quite useful, as it opens up Wikipedia a bit to people with diverse interests.--Pharos 04:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - This duplicates the conceptual scope of the category pages. You were aware you could put complex wiki-markup on these pages? - Aya 42 ^T C 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For subjects with portals, related categories should be removed as redundant. Categories should be limited to "needy" topics that need expansion, clarification, coherence, etc. --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Andre (talk) 21:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Support. CG 08:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Main Page in portal namespace

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. — Dan | Talk 03:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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://wiki.riteme.site/ or clicking on the big wikipedia logo. The URL http://wiki.riteme.site/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]
    What exactly is the implication? That only one page should be the exception, that two alternate versions of the main page make three pages in total, and that this invalidates my whole argument? I'll really have to defer to the "rat's ass" comment here. There's no point in arguing over whether the main page should be, exactly. As long as people can find it, you can stick it anywhere. My personal preference is to just leave it in the main namespace, but I'm not going to claim I have this big theoretical framework to back that up. JRM · Talk 21:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
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://wiki.riteme.site/ 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)
Support, with redirects – ABC D✉ 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- WHY? --Phroziac (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a lot of pages that link to the main page instead of wiki.riteme.site. And besides, what's the point?! raylu 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I see no reason to have Main_Page and Portal:Main be the same place, and Main_Page is a strong dependency for a lot of Wikipedia stuff. There are purist arguments for putting the main page in portal space, but working wikis with millions of readers and thousands of editors aren't fertile environments for purists. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, would be too confusing and break too much stuff. Alphax ^τεχ 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, disregarding principle for simplicity. Superm401 | Talk 18:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, Main_Page and Portal:Main should be separate. There has to be a legitimate reason for moving it. ral 315 22:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - The portal namespace should not be created, otherwise we're due for extented arguments about what does and doesn't constitute a 'portal'. - Aya 42 ^T C 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in the wrong section? — Sverdrup 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per Nickptar. --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Support, great, Main Page is a portal so it makes too much sense to be avoided. And with the Main Page being Portal:Main (or something equivalent), we would quickly establish the idea of Portals. Great. — Sverdrup 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]