| rdfs:comment
| - I propose something: a new namespace, "News:". Because we have so many people writing articles and not giving much info, just saying that things are still going on, they could instead write an article on it, and we could have it as news. I asked Angela about it, and she said: So, I think we should go ahead with it. Comments? Aido2002((talk)) 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) We need to discuss this, the news namespace is an important thing. Any comments? Aido2002((talk)) 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - I propose something: a new namespace, "News:". Because we have so many people writing articles and not giving much info, just saying that things are still going on, they could instead write an article on it, and we could have it as news. I asked Angela about it, and she said: "Yes, I can add that as long as the community agree on the idea. The downside is that it makes articles harder to link to, since you need to type [[news:page name|page name]] instead of just [[page name]]. The pages also won't show up on the RSS feed for Special:Newpages and they won't add to your article count () [Note: That count differs based on who is viewing it]. If everyone here is happy to do this despite the problems, let me know and I'll add it. Angela talk 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)" So, I think we should go ahead with it. Comments? Aido2002((talk)) 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) We need to discuss this, the news namespace is an important thing. Any comments? Aido2002((talk)) 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I don't really see it as that useful. why not just a category of "Current events"? That seems much simpler and more organized, new namespaces shouldn't be created when the content is relativly the same, just, newer. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Well, this way, we can easily separate news from real articles, and they can be written as news articles, not encyclopedia articles. Plus, we can have separate articles for things that shod be names of both real articles and news articles. For example, if lets say that XYZ is a nation, thus has an encyclopedia article for its name. Then, for whatever reason, a news article should be called XYZ. We have then, article XYZ, and News:XYZ. See what I mean? I feel like that was a bad example. Well, to see an article that shoud be in the "news:" namespace, see A Report on Treason. Aido2002((talk)) 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, I think your example is an rp history article, and a great example at that. The thing about having that namespace is that stuff is only "news" while it's new, are you going to move things out of that area? What if there is "news" about NPO, should there be a new NPO article in the news namespace or should it be added to NPO itself? If it goes in the news namespace then it may never make it into the NPO article, which doesn't seem like the best situation. Get what I'm saying? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I think see what you mean. We could put a template on top of the page saying that it is an archived article, if that's what you are saying. Aido2002((talk)) 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC) While that's useful, I think a better course of action would be to have a current event tag for regular articles that lets others know that it's in progress. Of course just a blank page isn't worth putting up but if there is something that can inform. Plus, it can go on regular pages, like if there is new stuff happening in NPO, someone could throw a current event tag on the article as it undergoes rapid editing, then when it is out of the news, we can remove the tag. That way archived news is right where it should be, in the history books, right on the page of the subject. This can work for new things, such as alliance treaties also, and would be easy enough. To be constructed pages should always be deleted and I think seperating good new content from the knowledge source that we already have isn't the best option, since it'll never get brought over, and the news will just dissapear. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Well, the thing is, I don't know what to do with this. I think it would be better off with the News namespace. Aido2002((talk)) 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Hmmm, yeah, it doesn't really belong anywhere. I think all articles mentioned in that article should have some mention of the event (which makes sense, if the event is newsworthy), but a I think a section (which already exists) would be good. As long as things aren't just thrown into the News namespace to die then I suppose it would have it's uses.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)