On the Nonstandard Use of Namespaces

[Ustice]

Since the original comments thread is getting long and too varied, I figure it's time to branch off discussion.

I must say that when I first approached the subject, I agreed with the current use of namespaces, since I have done a fair amount of object-oriented programming it fit within that paradigm, but after I did some more research on the subject it became apparent that the current implementation is not using the namespace concept in a standard way, and that using a pure category solution would be better.

The more you quote the docs, the less likely you are to convince me that namespaces are "bad".

The current use of namespaces isn't truly "bad," as it is non-standard. Name spaces are generally used for separating different classes of articles, not so much on their content, but on their use. For instance, the discussion pages are actually in a different namespace, along with the help pages.

Any time that the content needs to be organized, it is done through categories, which allow for both a tree-based structure, or more complex charting of relationships (since it is possible to have multiple parent categories). As I pointed out, Wikipedia, the largest wiki in current existence, has less than 20 namespaces, and thousands of root categories. Each of those namespaces contain data that is of a completely different use (except for the several types of talk pages, but I think that is just namespaces can't be nested).

Right... folders in a filing cabinet... part where all data of a particular kind are stored... Sounds spot on with how we are using them; where do weapon articles go? In the Weapon namespace. Armor articles? Armor namespace. lather, rinse, repeat...

Even though I was the one that linked to this, I believe that that part of the article is poorly worded. (I may even edit it...) A similar and better analogy is that the namespaces are like the file cabinets themselves, or other storage devices.

As I said, the use of namespaces for root categories is not the intended purpose of them. That is not necessarily a bad thing. You may be taking advantage of certain properties of namespaces that are not available as categories, but it is a hack. It may be a clever hack (and I am often impressed by and use clever hacks), but hacks should rarely be part of a permanent solution unless there is not other option.

And we do use categories as well, so we have that navigation flow/structure covered also. We have two levels of organization for the articles we automatically create -- the high level "category" is the namespace with things sub-categorized inside through categories.

This is true, and it is used "properly." I would merely suggest that you extend this concept to the root. It doesn't make much organizational sense to not include them in the same manner.

Certainly it works the way that it is set up, and there is some weight to that, as it might be difficult to reorganize things now, but given the disadvantages listed by Borror0 and given that it is improper to use them as we do now, and that the category system should be able to be used to a better effect, unless it would simply be too costly to do, the articles should be switched to a purely category system. (I'm willing to assist with that effort)

[Duwis]

At this time, it would be difficult to convincingly say that moving away from namespaces is something we need to do. This doesn't mean we won't ever consider or do it, but it means it is a very low priority item in the grand scheme. Other things are higher on the totem pole at the moment... like getting more quest info and pre-requisites listed, or adding your parsers . We've heard your opinions on the matter, and we'll keep them in mind.

[Ustice]

At this time, it would be difficult to convincingly say that moving away from namespaces is something we need to do. This doesn't mean we won't ever consider or do it, but it means it is a very low priority item in the grand scheme. Other things are higher on the totem pole at the moment... like getting more quest info and pre-requisites listed, or adding your parsers . We've heard your opinions on the matter, and we'll keep them in mind.

Sounds good. I just didn't think that I had expressed myself well the first time. Thanks for the work that you are doing. As passionate as I may seem about this topic, it's mostly a minor detail. There are plenty of things that I think are a lot more important (most of the stuff that you mentioned). I can't wait to see the new additions. Will we be getting incremental updates, or is everything planned to be released at once?

[Hobgoblin]

At this time, it would be difficult to convincingly say that moving away from namespaces is something we need to do. This doesn't mean we won't ever consider or do it, but it means it is a very low priority item in the grand scheme. Other things are higher on the totem pole at the moment... like getting more quest info and pre-requisites listed, or adding your parsers . We've heard your opinions on the matter, and we'll keep them in mind.

hey you broke into double digit posting!! Congrats!!