Wikipedia talk:Namespace

message: In the unnamed first section, the meta page says under bullet point
:* MediaWiki-namespace 
that all MW: pages are protected, but they ain't.  Someone who can generalize about which tend to be or not to be might correct this, without the errors i might if i tried. --Jerzy(t) 18:34, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
:I reworded that section. Is it clear now? Angela. 21:58, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
::Looks fine to me. [smile] Tnx do for the fix. --Jerzy(t) 23:23, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
I like it Mattdoel1 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The meta page

message: Is the text in User talk namespace licensed under GFDL? How about the text under User? // Rogper 14:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. The "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License" message in the edit window appears in all namespaces, and the GFDL notice is at the bottom of all pages, so hopefully it is clear to people that their user and talk pages are licensed in the same way as articles. Angela. 22:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL on User Talk pages ? 

message: See discussion of a proposed new namespace at Wikipedia:Portalspace. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal namespace 

message: It seems like pages in the Category: namespace should only be categories of articles, and categories of users should be in a separate User category: namespace. —Keenan Pepper 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly concur with this. Libcub (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User category namespace 

message: Plans as of this moment for not-yet-existent namespaces in future versions of Wikipedia?? Georgia guy 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's mention of a WikiProject namespace for Wikipedia at the Incubator. Spanish Wikipedia (and probably others) already has a namespace for this, and I think we ought to, but I know not of any further mention. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New namespaces yet?? 

message: There appear to be some stray tags at the top of this article. It seems to have to do with the template at the top: ... () I tried to puzzle out what to do to fix it, but could not. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray tags 

message: I've made several minor changes to the #Talk namespaces section of this page. Firstly I corrected a link to the help namespace and changed some italics around. I also added a note that you only see the new messages bar when you log in, just to make sure people don't wonder why they don't see the new messages banner when they aren't logged in. Next, I mentioned that the new messages bar appeared at the top; not really necessary (that is, I doubt anyone would go looking for it at the bottom), but no harm either. Finally, I added the line:"(However, edits by the talk page-archiving Werdnabot don't set of the new messages bar anymore.)"I'm not sure how Werdnabot has been enabled to skip setting off the bar, but I can verify it has, at least for me; nor do I know if there are any other bots that do this. (Ralbot doesn't, for one.) Any objections to any of these changes? Picaroon 05:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion on WP:BN has lead to the clarification of this; it's all minor bot edits which don't cause new message bars to appear. Picaroon 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the talk namespaces section 

message: Now, "main namespace" on Wikipedia:Namespace#Basic namespaces links to "Main page". "Main namespace" means only "Main page"? -- PBeaver 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I've removed the wikilink as misleading.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main namespace covers what? 

message: Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Lists and Contents pages 

message: I seem not to have made my request clear, perhaps because I started by asking a general question before mentioning the specific situation which motivated the question, and because the specific situation is fairly complex (as a mind-numbing read of the talk page discussions I cited above would show). I'm not talking about creating a new pseudo-namespace just to make one shortcut to the whole index, but to create many shortcuts to headings within the index. See the part of my question above beginning from: "...adding a large number of shortcuts to the index, to link to major headings." These will be shortcuts that link to anchors inside the index, for example we have this one:
*WP:EITW-Access
which links a user to the index heading which says: "Access (limiting):". (That particular shortcut is merely a prototype; it is in the WP: pseudo-namespace. However, we would like to create a new pseudo-namespace so that shortcut could be: EIW:Access.) The index has many major headings, and we would like to make shortcuts for all of them. What we want to do is similar to what other editors did for the Manual of style. See: Special:Prefixindex/MOS: - we want to do something like that, with a new EIW: pseudo-namespace. For example, this shortcut:
*MOS:ALLCAPS
links to the section:
*Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps
** Unfortunately, that section does not include a  template that would display the shortcut link for easy copy-and-pasting - perhaps I should fix that. But I digress.
The motivation for creating shortcuts to topic headings in the index is so we can cite them easily, for example when answering questions on the Help desk or on talk pages. The index is so large that we need to be able to link to particular parts of it, to avoid sending the reader on an arduous process of scrolling and hunting.
Hopefully that clears up what we want to do. We want to make a whole bunch of shortcuts like EIW:Access, EIW:Account, EIW:Admin, EIW:Advert, and on through the whole alphabet. Because we will be making so many shortcuts, we think grouping them into their own pseudo-namespace is better than piling them into the WP: pseudo-namespace, where they are likely to collide with existing shortcut names (since the index is full of words which also appear throughout the project and help namespaces). 
Now, returning to my original question: we feel pretty confident that we know what to do, but we want to know if there is any agreed-on procedure for creating new pseudo-namespaces. Is this something that anyone can just do, or should we discuss it somewhere first? --Teratornis 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I can summarize quickly: the reason for having shortcuts like EIW:Privacy is so that an editor can point other editors to a major topic within the index; as in, For more information about privacy in Wikipedia, see the section in the Editor's Index.  Possibly even more useful, assuming the shortcuts are named well, an editor can say to him/herself: "I wonder what there is in the index about maps - I'll type EIW:Maps into to the search box and take a look at the Editor's Index."  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I am not a developer/code-guru, but) That should be fine. Tagging them with  will place them in :category:Unprintworthy redirects, so there aren't any mainspace-overlap issues. As nobody has objected, I'd say you can just do it. :) --Quiddity 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restart 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index lists - RfC 

message: What are the 17 auxiliary and two custom namespaces? Could we have them added to the article, please? Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxiliary and custom namespaces 

message: *"The main namespace, for example, contains all of the Wikipedia articles ever written and all of the past versions of those articles." 
** Not the permanently deleted.
*"The user namespace contains the personal pages of all Wikipedians who have created one."
** A can create a personal page for B. Then the namespace does not include a personal page of A (who create a personal page) and on the other hand it includes a personal page for B who didn't create one. Also it does not include permanently deleted ones.
*"This definition [the above + more] applies to all wikis that use the MediaWiki software." 
** There are Wikis that do not have any Wikipedians.
TechControl (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple false intro 

message: Apparently, the namespace numbering is hexidecimal because the number goes from 0-15 and then goes to 100 (for Portal namespace). Would it be better if the numbering is changed to hexidecimal format in the chart? (e.g. ns:10 becomes ns:A, ns:15 becomes ns:F). Thanks, -- Myfavouritecolourispink 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because it doesn't work like that. If you type  you get , but type  and you just get Template:Ns:F.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The technical reason that Portal's number is so high is that it is a custom namespace rather than one built into the software. —JAO • T • C 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the namespace numbering hexidecimal? 

message: It says at Wikipedia:Namespace#Basic namespaces: " will insert the image directly into the page ()". It seems to me that it works just as well for sound files:  displays a play button. The same is true for Ogg files: .
With MIDI files it seems the behaviour is the opposite to images:  gives a link to the File page – , but  gives a link which will play the file: .
The documentation here and at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax should reflect the actual behaviour of the software. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Around 2019, developers enhanced mw:Extension:Timed Media Handler to play MIDI files (behind the scenes, a software synth running on the server "plays" the MIDI file to produce a digital audio file), so the behavior of  wikilinks changed. It may still be the case that people can upload media file formats that a File:some page.SPECIALFORMAT</nowiki> wikilink can't yet render. -- Skierpage (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: File: "not for sound"?

message: There is ongoing discussion here of a proposal to define "UT:" as an alias for the User talk namespace. Comments and participation are welcome. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to define an alias for the "User talk" namespace 

message: I'm boldly closing this because, as has been pointed out, it makes no sense for this to be 'promoted' to be a guideline. It gives information, it is not a guide. Fences&Windows 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to make it a guideline? I don't understand. The page is informational only, users can't "follow" its advice. It just gives technical details about the namespaces like what sorts of thing are in each one. Placing the guideline banner at the top that says it should be "followed with common sense and occasional exceptions" doesn't fit; it's unlikely a user'd try to create a userpage or upload media into the category namespace; they'd have a hard job doing it. Actually I don't think the information page header is needed either. –Whitehorse1 13:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may seem obvious, no other page documents as a guideline that the main namespace is for articles and lists, the WIkipedia namespace for project-related pages, the Help namespace for help pages, the template namespace for pages that are transcluded, etc. That's how users would follow its advice. While it's true that some uses of a namespace are technologically precluded, most are not. Does that address your question? --Bsherr (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object strongly if this page was labelled as a guideline, though it seems to consist mostly of technical information rather than guidance, and it would probably make more sense to label as guidelines the pages which deal with the various individual namespaces. The "guideline-type" content on this page is little more than a summary of the information that's on those individual pages.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the individual namespace pages have the same issue. One solution would be to split the information between the project and help namespaces. --Bsherr (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promote to guideline 

message: I've been throwing ideas around at WT:Disambiguation, and am curious about one particular idea. What would it take to create a Disambiguation namespace, specially for dab articles? It would be sort of like the Portal namespace. Dab articles are obviously different than the rest of article space, similar to portals. What are your reactions to this idea? What are the technical pros and cons that I'm not aware of? ...comments? ~BFizz 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion where  was "throwing ideas around" being Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 33#Dab page location. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation namespace 

message: There's actually another alias for the File namespace, which is Media, there's no Media talk though. Is there a reason, why this isn't mentioned in the alias section? F. F. Fjodor (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it already on Wikipedia:Media_namespace#Virtual_namespaces. F. F. Fjodor (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not exactly an alias, it's a different way of "linking" to the target page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File-namespace alias 

message: Pseudo-namespaces like t:, cat:, h: and p: are now in fact alias-namepaces in other Wikipedia like Chinese Wikipedia where I type t:navbar, it links to template:navbar without the need of extra redirect page. Is there any technical issues that prevent the implement of these shortcut namespaces in English Wikipedia? They're so convenient like wp: namespace. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They pollute the namespace.  There are many articles (I had the number, and I can re-find it presently) with a : in their names. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One person's pollution is another person's treasure.  Redirects help wikitext legibility and speed up writing. They don't pollute mainspace pagenames because no article will probably be titling itself something like the typical name such a redirect might take.— CpiralCpiral 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Sameboat, read up on redirects.  What you seem to propose is a merge of redirects and namespace-aliases, because pseudo-namespaces are just plain old, classical redirects.  What you want seems to be mw:Manual:Using custom namespaces.  Maybe your wiki has the alias T, (see mw:Help:namespace#Localisation) but that is hard-coded if it is a namespace alias, and not wikitext, as is a redirect/pseudo-namespace.  There is nothing basically wrong with yet another redirect page. They have negligible impact on performance, and don't pollute the mainspace pagenames.— CpiralCpiral 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrate pseudo-namespace into alias-namespace 

message: Where would one petition to have a FAQ namespace added? There are many articles where discussions are endlessly repeated, and calls for merges, deletions, or era changes, etc are repeated by newcomers. A few of the Talk pages I've seen recently have mentioned the desire to have a FAQ page where results of major-change discussions, or results of discussions of questions frequently asked can be placed for easy reference without having to rehash a long discussion all over again on the Talk page. Is there a place at WP where a request for a new namespace could be placed? Many thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ Namespace 

message: How come portal namespaces and book namespaces (and their appropriate talk namespaces) have the numbers in the hundreds, instead of Being numbers 16 through 20? Wouldn't that be more efficient?Drla8th! (talk)  20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Namespace#Programming where it states . Namespaces 0-15 are the same in all languages - numbers 100 up vary between languages. For example, the  Wikipedia has numbers 100-111 defined; the  Wikipedia has only 100 & 101 defined. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.Drla8th! (talk)  20:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Might be more accurate to say between projects, rather than between languages. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New #? 

message: Since we have now deployed ‎Scribunto, we should probably add some more information about the Module: namespace . I would have been bold and updated it myself, but it is semi-protected. Cheers. 64.40.54.86 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more info about Module: namespace 

message: I start the section off with how to get a list of real namespace, 
then go to how to get a the list of pseudo namespace shortcuts.
I then go on to explain the usefulness.
I mention redirects and shortcuts, but don't even begin to explain how things work,
as it is complex and lengthy, and I removed that addition I tentatively made.
I also removed the existing mention about the "validity" of using the shortcuts in a search box for the same reason.  
Finally, I clarified the transwiki stuff. — CpiralCpiral 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-namespace section edited 

message: A new pseudo-namespace prefix for the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion has been unilaterally created, and is now subject to a deletion discussion. Apparently this is the place where people interested in such things happen to be. You are invited to join the discussion. Keφr 10:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1]] 

message: There is an ongoing RfC going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace that anyone visiting this page may be interested in. Technical 13 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of RfC: Should [[CSD:]] be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion? 

message: See this at WP:VPT. About using the word "Subjectspace" instead of "Non-talkspace" (ouch) or "Basic namespace". -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject namespace

message: There is currently an RFC opened at the village pump to clarify current consensus and policies about the controversial pseudo-namespace redirects that you might want to participate in. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts|Pseudo-namespace Redirects]] 

message: I disagree with the recent changes to the pseudo-namespaces section. The redefinitions (!) might not be appropriate. Reverting might be appropriate. -DePiep (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you disagree with? What was "redefined"? By the way, I am confused by the RfC linked to in the section above this. It borders on "too long, didn't read". Would be helpful if someone could clearly state what we are expected to comment on. All I see is that there have been many past discussions on this topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss recent changes in pseuo-namespace

message: [...]
Inkdexter (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page :Wikipedia:Namespace. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —  (e • t • c) 12:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: content of request removed per WP:SOAP --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014 

message: We have an alias called tools: (tools:) and it goes to a dead site. toolserver.org has moved to tools.wmflabs.org .. is it possible to update the alias? It won't break anything since the alias is currently broken. -- GreenC 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Tools_alias_.28tools:.29 -- GreenC 00:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MULTI, answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Tools alias (tools:). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools alias (tools:) 

message: Jitin Kumar
Jitin817 (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you have misunderstood the purpose of this page, which is to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Namespace, not somewhere to write your name.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015 

message: At WP:Namespaces#Pseudo-namespaces, it says that the prefix "T:" brings you to the same page's equivalent at "Template:"  But I just tried this several times and it doesn't work.  E.g. T:United Kingdom in the European Union does not go to Template:United Kingdom in the European Union.  Anyone know what's going on?  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it's called a pseudo-namespace – The alias T for Template does not work like the aliases WP for Wikipedia, and WT for Wikipedia talk. Every page beginning with T: is actually in main (article) space, and that's why their use is so restricted. The project consensus is to maintain only a very limited use of these pseudo-namespace cross-namespace redirects. See :Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and more specifically, :Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. If T: worked like WP: does, then we couldn't have an article with the title T: The New York Times Style Magazine and we would need to use  to explain the correct title of that article. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For example,  redirects to Template:Did you know. That redirect in in mainspace, not template space. wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template pseudo-namespace not working 

message: 2.29.100.169 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Namespace.If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016 

message: Dixit Prajapati (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Namespace. - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016 

message: 119.160.99.216 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018 

message: 105.239.227.167 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Abote2 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018 

message: It seems that by default, search only searches the main article namespace. Often enough, maybe more often, I want to search WP:, to figure out how to do something.  I would like the default to be both main space and WP:.  It seems that neither this page, nor WP:Search explains that one. I suppose I wouldn't mind if the default search was all namespaces, but I don't see that, either. Gah4 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  default search 

message: Doc says 
 "Previously, the Topic namespace was available for the Flow project but it has since been turned off on this wiki."
However, i noticed the Topic namespace on my wiki (v1.30) after installing Flow. 
Confused!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnywhy (talk • contribs) 19 June 2018 (UTC)
: Your wiki is not "this wiki". "This wiki" is the English Wikipedia. The sentence you quote is only talking about the English Wikipedia. - dcljr (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thx. Johnywhy (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic Namespace Not Turned Off? 

message: 180.251.124.219 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit request is empty. If you would like to make a change, please state specifically the change you request. Station1 (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018 

message: If you've ever been curious whether logged-out users read a given namespace, then please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T211142 
For example, 1 in 120 page views in the mainspace is a logged-in user, but a majority of page views in the draft space are editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Great info!!--Moxy (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who reads which namespace? 

message: A few of use have been making video scripts that than compile into videos. Wondering about getting a "Video" namespace for the scripts? Example are:
*Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Cancer
*Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Typhoid fever
*Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Gout
*Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Dengue fever
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New namespace for video

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Converting pseudo-namespaces to aliases.   talk 23:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: VPT discussion on converting pseudo-namespaces to aliases

message: Due to the fact that this page is a how to guide, It should be moved to Help:Namespaces with a redirect. -- PythonSwarm   Talk  |   Contribs   |   Global 01:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , this is almost a requested move discussion. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Page move nomination 

message: *Opposed really only seeing infomation here rather then how to do something.--Moxy 🍁 03:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I know the Topic namespace is not on the English Wikipedia, but it is on other wikis, like the Russian Wikipedia. Why is the ID for the Topic namespace 2600? Shouldn't it be -3, because it has no talk page, so it is a virtual namespace? Gioguch (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know, we don't set these values. Try asking at meta:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried asking at meta, no response. What next? Also, if you were here when Wikipedia had the topic namespace, do you know what format it is written in? Gioguch (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You only asked two days ago. That page has fewer than thirty watchers, and was last edited nearly fifteen years ago. At any one time Meta has far fewer people than Wikipedia who are logged in; so responses are bound to take longer. You may get quicker response at m:Tech which has more than 350 watchers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Look I think the solution is that just because the topic namespace doesn't have a paired subject page it doesn't mean its a virtual namespaces. Virtual namespaces either are not editable in the usual fashion (Special:) or an alias for direct links to media files (Media:). They both happen to not have talk pages, but that is not the reason they're considered "virtual". All talk pages are non-virtual, as they are directly editable and not aliases, and "Topic:" is no exception. Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: And for an example see mw:Manual talk:FAQ, its a Topic: page even though its named "Discussion". Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Pinging , who probably knows the answer to this. --Yair rand (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Negative namespaces are built-in special ones for MediaWiki (Special: and Media:, specifically). Locally-configured namespaces like Topic: aren't special, they're normal, and trying to register them as negative would break lots of things in subtle, un-fixable ways that I can't predict but can foresee. Namespaces don't need to have an associated Talk: equivalent, whether or not they're built-in 'special' ones. Also, please don't summon people for random tech questions. Ask in the appropriate venue, on MediaWiki.org where technical work happens, in future please. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   It doesn't appear to me that Topic namespaces can be edited in the normal way. Most pages have the edit button on top, Topic pages do not. It doesn't even show you the source. If you go to mw:Special:Editpage/Special:Random/topic, it will not show you the topic page's source. This makes me think that it's not written in wikitext and cannot be edited normally. Gioguch (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK maybe not edited in the normal way, but directly edited though. Still I think you've got you answer among the comments here, especially since its not a built in NS (namespace) but is installed through the mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions; in that case it could break the software to give it a negative NS. You may also be interested in mw:Extension default namespaces which lists the various NS and their numbers. It says "2 namespaces have negative indexes and have special purposes. You cannot create or delete pages in these namespaces, and there are no corresponding discussion namespaces." Really its down to the people who wrote Extension:StructuredDiscussions which NS number is assigned. Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ok, thank you for your help! Gioguch (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic namespace 

message: I might add a proposal/rfc if this is allowed, but what if we can add 2 new namespaces called Forum: and Thread:? It can be useful for storing about the general subject and not about the page. There is also an extension called WikiForum too. 
=== How it can work ===
Essentially we can take a page, like the Main Page for example. We then make a forum page called Forum:Main Page that will contain a list of threads related to Main Page
Here's an example of what it might look like:
Forum:Main Page                                                                              
Thread:I like this page
Thread:I like the featured article
We might possibly add restrictions to threads (ex. no thread spam, off-topic threads removal, etc.) and add user rights related to forums and threads (possible ones like forum admins)
If this ideas not rejected, I might make an RfC for this sort of subject, as i'd like to see a forum feature in Wikipedia.
Off-topic note: We can make a new namespace for disambiguation pages
a gd fan (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi GeometryDashFan12. I think you're talking about mw:Extension:WikiForum. Well it would be a possible addition, and we do have present forums at WP:VP. Well I've absolutely no idea how currently viable it would be to use it, how good or stable it currently is, or whether it would be an improvement. However I do think it pretty unlikely that it would be accepted by the community. The present system works fine, is popular, and to some extent entrenched in the wp mindset. There was a recent attempt to replace the current talk page system with mw:Structured Discussions, but it was roundly rejected by the community here. Also I note that Structured Discussions is no longer being developed. So the chance that other talk-page like systems being accepted is pretty low, and will suffer the same fate as Structured Discussions. I suppose if you feel strongly about it you could bring it up at WP:VP/T, but I think your chances of success are minimal so I don't particularly advise it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 2 new namespaces we can add 

message: Essentially we can take a page, like the Main Page for example. We then make a forum page called Forum:Main Page that will contain a list of threads related to Main Page
Here's an example of what it might look like:
Forum:Main Page                                                                              
Thread:I like this page
Thread:I like the featured article
We might possibly add restrictions to threads (ex. no thread spam, off-topic threads removal, etc.) and add user rights related to forums and threads (possible ones like forum admins)
If this ideas not rejected, I might make an RfC for this sort of subject, as i'd like to see a forum feature in Wikipedia.
Off-topic note: We can make a new namespace for disambiguation pages
a gd fan (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi GeometryDashFan12. I think you're talking about mw:Extension:WikiForum. Well it would be a possible addition, and we do have present forums at WP:VP. Well I've absolutely no idea how currently viable it would be to use it, how good or stable it currently is, or whether it would be an improvement. However I do think it pretty unlikely that it would be accepted by the community. The present system works fine, is popular, and to some extent entrenched in the wp mindset. There was a recent attempt to replace the current talk page system with mw:Structured Discussions, but it was roundly rejected by the community here. Also I note that Structured Discussions is no longer being developed. So the chance that other talk-page like systems being accepted is pretty low, and will suffer the same fate as Structured Discussions. I suppose if you feel strongly about it you could bring it up at WP:VP/T, but I think your chances of success are minimal so I don't particularly advise it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How it can work 

message: GOOD NIGHT SWEET PRINCE
YOU WILL BE MISSED
   /-_-\
  /  /  \
 /  /    \
 \  \    /
  \__\__/
     \\
     -\\    ____
       \\  /   /
 ____   \\/___/
 \   \ -//
  \___\//-
     -//
      \\
      //
     //-
   -//
   //
   \\
    \\
jp×g🗯️ 07:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIP Gadget talk: Invention, Travel, & Adventure