Template talk:Namespaces

Thread and Summary namespaces

I removed Thread and Summary namespaces which currently, I think, are not namespaces.

This template is currently transcluded at Wikipedia:Namespace which states there are 10 basic namespaces but the template table contained 12, which was very confusing.

A discussion [Wikipedia_talk:Namespace#Thread_space.3F_Summary_space.3F here] says they are for mw:Extension:LiquidThreads , which to the best of my knowledge does not make them currently namespaces. --phauly (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RFD related to this template

There's an RFD related to this template at Wikipedia:Rfd#Wikipedia:File_namespace. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a singular talk namespace

To editor DePiep: Since these are all actually in the same namespace, "talkspace", I felt it was misleading and confusing to call them "talk namespaces". Technically, "Wikipedia talk:" is no different from "Help talk:" is no different from "Template talk:" – they are all in "talkspace". I thought this would be uncontroversial; however, I am glad to discuss it with you.

I do a lot of redirect categorization, and one that I use from time-to-time is {{R to talk}}. I recently emptied its cat, Redirects to talk pages, of all talk-page redirects and I found that it's very confusing to editors to see talkspace as several different talk spaces. So there were a lot of redirects that were at, say, "Help talk" and that targeted, say, "Wikipedia talk" and were tagged with {{R to talk}}. But that Rcat should only be used to tag redirects that are outside talkspace when they target pages that are inside talkspace. Can you see how leaving it "Talk namespaces" in this template is misleading and confusing? especially for newer editors? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree with DePiep. There is not one single talk namespace, as Template:Namespaces clearly shows. Each subject namespace has its own distinct talk namespace, e.g., the Template talk: namespace (11) is "technically" distinct from the Wikipedia talk: namespace (5). To assert otherwise will confuse readers. What I sometimes find confusing is the rationale behind the "R to..." series of templates. {{R to talk page}} at first glance implies a redirect to namespace 1, the Talk: namespace. But actually it says talk page not talk namespace, and while namespace is very specific, the term talk page is a more general term that can more broadly be used for all of the talk namespaces. The template name says nothing about where the redirect is coming from, just that it is going to a talk page. If "R from talk to talk" is outside of the desired scope, then perhaps a rename to {{R from subject page to talk page}} would help. In any event, the purpose should be clearly explained by the template documentation. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense to me Wbm1058. I suppose it can be said that for the purposes of redirect categorization there is only one talk namespace, which is represented by all the talk pages regardless of what namespace their content page is in. On the other hand, for all other purposes I do see where it may be confusing to singularize "Talk namespaces". Perhaps the R to talk page category's name should be changed. For example, the category name for the R to template namespace Rcat is Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. We might want to consider a similar name for the Redirects to talk pages category – perhaps something like Category:Redirects to talk page from non-talk-page namespaces. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)First, to be clear about the words. "subject" and "talk" are those complementary opposites, always. They make the pair, both per page and per namespace.

Re PE. In your first paragraph you talk about "one" talkspace, where all x_talkpages would be. That is not true. There are 13 independent, differently named and identified talkspaces. Your confused reader is probably confused by ... someone saying that there is only one talkspace. :::Very often "talkspace" can be singular without any confusion at all. That is good then. This is mostly when thinking/talking from a subject page or from a subject space. A subject page has a talkpage. A subject space has a talkspace. All correct.

Still no problem when you use the {{R to talk}} as you describe. But we must remember it is a simplification. It actually means to say: {R to a talkpage}, or {R to a talkspace}. If you can handle the redirects with that simplification: OK & fine. But do not let the language come back to bite you. What you describe is: I have this single template with that name, and it works for its purpose, so by reverse all talkpages are in that one. That reversal grouping is the illogical step.

As a table column header the plural is correct (and very clear for any reader, I dare say, who arrives here). It also is in good balance & complementary with the opponent, "subject namespaces". I am not saying that your template topic should change to plurals or to specific ns names - again, if it works for you its OK. I even guess that the essence for that template is only about redirecting to a talkspace (any). (but if it confuses you you might want to think again: what if you'd approach them as separates? - just a hint).

Don't think I can explain it any better. Glad Wbm gave it a try too. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, DePiep, you both have explained it very well, and I do understand it from a more general, less (Rcat) specific point-of-view. It is better to see all the talk pages as just as different as all the content pages for most purposes. It would probably be unnecessary to have different redirect categories for each different type of talk page, but who knows? There may come a time when that will become necessary. At any rate, thank you for catching my mistake, and thank you both for your lucid explanations! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education Program namespace is still installed on English Wikipedia

Moxy Hi, look I feel this edit [1] should be reverted. The Education Program namespace is still installed on English Wikipedia, it is just deprecated and inactive. It mirrors the Gadget and Gadget Definition namespaces in being unused. If you go to search it is still listed, and contains inactive courses.

I feel the Education Namespace should be reinserted as it should be a list of all installed namespaces, not just used namespaces. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Moxy (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI namesspace has Been removed all over....however they left the talk pages lol.--Moxy (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy Some pages are still there, but not on search (doesn't work with namespace). e.g. see Education Program:Boston College/Developmental Biology (Spring 2013). also try creating a page, e.g. Education Program:Example, software doesn't allow it as it is protected. Namespace is very much installed, but disabled from course additions, and most functionality and pages have been removed. Also see Special:Version, Education Program extension, which installs the namespace, is still installed on this wiki, but has been shut down.

Namespace will be uninstalled when they uninstall Education Program extension, and it will become like Flow (no longer installed). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book - currently unused?

Moxy, why was Book: namespace moved to "Currently unused"? There are lots of pages in that namespace edits are still being made, and Cyberbot I (talk · contribs) still updates the Book talk: space. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2019 we suppressed the rendering capability of Template:Wikipedia books (related =Template:Book bar & Template:Books-inline) and removed the Book Creator from the sidebar after a community discussion about effectiveness. The namespace and its transclusions are still retained in the hope that the WMF will come up with a solution. You can still create and edit a book design, but the online book rendering service has been withdrawn. See Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books.--Moxy 🍁 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal version

It'd be useful for use at the bottom of articles, as vertical sidebars are discouraged in the lead (MOS:LEAD. fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used in any articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in Wikipedia space follow most of the article style guidelines. It's debatable where to draw the line. With the new default skin, content screen area is highly constrained. The present template:namespaces is taking up a lot of vertical space. For example, it's conflicting with the shortcut box in Wikipedia:Template_namespace, see screenshot. Hence the need for a horizontal version -- a navbox --, to be used at the bottom of articles. fgnievinski (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look terrible to me, but I get that the column for content has been narrowed by Vector 2022. I have a small screen and have been affected as well. One of the problems is that the white space between the table of contents and the page content is too large, and has been since the skin was rolled out. I have contributed feedback to a number of bugs related to this problem, and some changes have been made. One of the outstanding bugs is T321860, from which I have just linked to this discussion and your helpful screen shot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]