Please debate this here and not in Talk:Consumerium itself which is only one issue affected by these major decisions, nor in Dispute over project-namespace change which is just a bad name since the issues will re-emerge in other disputes later on, i.e. there is no one such dispute, but there will be ongoing disputes about this, all on this page I hope:
The real deal
Using verbs for namespaces just isn't something we are going to do; It just messes the mental coherence of what is the role and meaning of article names in the main namespace and in the other namespaces.
- Sorry, you are wrong. You are trying to impose object-oriented programming nonsense beliefs on what is obviously and only a structured or functional type of problem. A very few types of data items (company/manufacturer, service/product, region/country - see intermediate page) must be processed very deeply by a number of processes that "Develop" the system, "Research" the sources, and "Publish" the final conclusions. It is a simple pipeline. In every such functional project the namespace is verb-first, so this assertion is WRONG:
"Namespaces must be nouns"
I could consider changing the project-namespace to "Development:", but I'd say that "Consudev:" is a good solution:
- It's not too long.
- It's not difficult to remember
- It conveys that the articles in the namespace are about "CONSUmerium DEVelepoment" (which would be way too long to use
--Juxo 20:25, 28 Aug 2005 (GMT)
- "Develop" is a verb like "Research" or "Publish" and is evidently good enough to be the subdomain name with no problems. It is NOT a good solution unless you want to invent other crap words like "ConsuRes" or "ConsuPub".
And more - you (142) wrote the article wiki best practice that touts http://dowire.org/wiki/Wiki_best_practice as the best in "best practice" and in there we find http://dowire.org/wiki/Avoid_new_namespaces . Now what is the coherence in that that you are pushing for 7 namespaces for recording policies, guidelines and help reagarding the way that Consumerium is run.
- Wikipedia has three, the [[User:]], Wikipedia: and the main namespace plus the various meta things, and of course a talk space to parallel each. That's four right there. And what Consumerium is doing is much more complex and rigorous than what Wikipedia is doing.
I repeat that verbs are not going to be used as namespaces. I tried it already (to keep the project-namespace in accordance with the domain-name), but it was just plain confusing and not a good practice.
- Sorry, verbs are the only rational long term namespaces, since the only rational reason you divide up namespaces is to DO different things to what is named. You are wrong, it is not confusing to anyone doing anything intelligent, e.g. helping Consumerium research itself or develop itself. If that makes sense, then, the verb namespace makes sense. You are just not thinking clearly about this.
- Also one must keep the namespace and domain name in sync so that when you go to "Develop.consumerium.org/whatever" you are getting the same thing as "research.consumerium.org/develop:whatever". Any other solution is just not a solution, it's a problem.
The namespaces we are going to have are going to be in the manner of
- Company: and Product: (though one of these will be most likely discarded because the content goes into the main namespace) (my current tingling is that the products will go to the main namespace)
- GTIN:, EAN: and UPC: --Juxo 20:37, 28 Aug 2005 (GMT)
- You are blathering on using instinct instead of DESIGNING this. Yes, it is quite reasonable to have different namespaces per product naming scheme, that is fine. One must avoid new namespaces not ban them.
- It's reasonable to drop "Research:" in favour of the names of things researched, yes, but the problem with that is that there is no place to state policy regarding research so the name re-emerges.
- "Consumerium:" will be the project-namespace used for guidelines and help for editing and viewing the content that is in the main (and other namespaces such as "Company:") --Juxo 18:48, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)
- "viewing the content that is in the main" at develop.consumerium.org, you mean? what is at consumerium.org? I would presume that is Research: for reasons stated below.
- We *are* using [[Consumerium:]] properly now, and pages like Consumerium:itself are providing exactly that, "guidelines and help for editing" and setting mission of the project (which is certainly the same, it is the "meta" level). This is not "consudev" stuff. If you want to help Consumerium develop:itself then fine link to that page! Likewise if you want it to research:itself or publish:itself, go ahead, those are key functions it must perform:
- define itself (via pages linked to Consumerium:itself)
- develop itself (via pages linked to Develop:itself)
- research itself (via pages linked to Research:itself, say mentions of Consumerium in the press, and effects it has had on decisions, and other empirical neutral evidence)
- publish itself (via pages linked to Publish:itself, which defines its mission and purpose to the world via publications and corrects misimpressions revealed by research, states new directiosn for development, and explains new definitions for its mission)
- OTHER THAN THAT, we agree, [[Consumerium:]] is what Consumerium Governance Organization uses. According to namespace it uses Develop: only to debate development decisions like technology. Maybe this is redundant and we can actually use only main namespace for this? Most large public wikis though use their main namespace for the things that most of the public cares about, so in our case, this should be the Research:].
- A god-awful alternative is to use horrible standard abbreviations like "dev:" and "pub:" but this is just too awful to think about.