Talk:Extension default namespaces/LQT Archive 1

102
This wiki uses ns 102 for "Extension:". Any likely conflict with standard SMW's "Property:"? Robin Patterson 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, since SMW is not installed on this wiki and a version prior 1.0 will not be installed in the future. Cheers --kgh 08:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sites using different numbers for the same extension
Do Wikia sites using 302 etc, in place of standard SMW's 102 etc, have any likely consequent problems? Robin Patterson 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Theoretically it should not happen, since extension developers now know that Wikia, which represents quiet a large "wiki universe". Choosing the early 300+ does not make sense. --kgh 08:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reservation of numbers for site-specific namespaces 500 - 599
There is a note: "Site-specific custom namespaces are generally assigned in the 100 to 199 range. I would recommend staying out of this range for anything to be defined by an extension."

These numbers are however used by Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic MediaWiki Extensions. It would indeed be very useful to have numbers reserved for site-specific namespaces. According to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_namespace_registration numbers from 500-599 are still free. Would'nt it be a good idea to really reserve this range for site-specific custom namespaces?

Kappa 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not. This would help providing wiki administrators with a reliable range not to be used by extension. However my attempt to at least keep them of the range 100-110 failed recently on Manual:Using custom namespaces. Cheers --kgh 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * is someone responsible for this process and can enter this reservation on this page (Extension_namespace_registration)? Kappa  13:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not know. :-( Perhaps it is an option to bring this forward on one of the mailing lists. Cheers --kgh 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost a year and nobody voiced an objection. I need a safe range for my own use, so I added this section: Extension_namespace_registration. ~Michael Allantalk 19:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. Some wikis I know already use this range. Nemo 20:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion continues in. ~Michael Allantalk 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Social tools' namespaces
Apparently my edit was reverted because of some conflicts. Like I wrote in my edit summary, the namespaces conflict with some other extensions' namespaces and site-specific namespaces, but I'd prefer if the other extensions would change their numbers because social tools have been using these namespace numbers since 2007 or so.

Having a site-specific range (500-599) is just silly IMO, sites can and should use whatever NSes aren't registered; who says that custom namespaces indexes can't start from 1000+? I'd like to change TimedMediaHandler's custom NS from 700 to 710 or something; that should be a relatively simple and uncontroversial change, I hope. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 08:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did the revert. I read your subsequent response on my talk page.  Thanks for agreeing to discuss the issue.  Please note that the reservation of range 500-599 was open to discussion for 11 months (see preceding section).  There were no objections, so we decided to act.  The range is now reserved.  Manual:Using custom namespaces was altered accordingly.  Without a general, prior agreement to withdraw the reservation, I feel it should remain in force.  Otherwise, what is the purpose of a registration system? ~Michael Allantalk  22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the point about the discussion regarding site-specific namespaces being open for almost a year, but the point is that I didn't read it as I don't actively monitor it, and I'm quite sure that many other developers didn't read the discussion either.

Kghbln suggested that the discussion about site-specific namespaces should be raised on the appropriate mailing lists, which in this case would've been wikitech-l, the development mailing list (yes, mailing lists are so Web 1.0 but they're also how we do things). Many developers, whether they're core, extension or third-party, are subscribed to that mailing list, so by posting there your message will reach the intended audience and you can claim consensus on your changes.


 * As for the question regarding the purpose of this page, it really depends. To be exact, while many developers might use this page, it still doesn't change what's in SVN &mdash; for the time being, BlogPage is using namespaces 500 and 501, no matter what this page says.


 * Ignoring everything and anything related to site-specific namespaces and namespaces indexes 500-599, what about the other namespaces? While Wikia certainly has a lot of custom extensions and some of them do define their own namespaces, I feel that registration should happen on a per-extension basis instead of reserving a range to Wikia; are their developers even aware of the fact that they had such a reserved range registered on this page?


 * Extension:NagiosConfig, which has reserved namespaces 600-609, is marked unstable and the latest edit to the extension page has been done on 27 May 2011 and its source code isn't available; Extension:FanBoxes is older, it is marked as stable and it certainly works with MediaWiki 1.16.0, so I feel it should get the namespaces 600 and 601, as it already uses them in the code.


 * Considering that Extension:TimedMediaHandler hasn't been deployed yet on Wikimedia wikis, I don't think bumping its namespaces from 700 and 701 to something like 710 and 711 or something will be very controversial. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 14:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish I could answer your questions, or point to someone who's responsible for the design of the registration process. I think that most of us are simply following the instructions at the top of the page: 'To prevent conflicts in new namespaces added by extensions, please "register" your extension's namespace here.'


 * If we take care to do that, then things should work out okay. ~Michael Allan 00:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)