https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #27 from Equazcion <equazc...@gmail.com> --- > (In reply to comment #25) > > I have a hard time understanding what is going on here? If this was any > > other > > wiki, we would note that their is community consensus, and implement the > > change. > > > > The only thing slightly iffy thing here is to be able to let anons create > > pages > > in this namespace - that might require someone taking 10 seconds writing a > > hook > > (Or even better, someone fixing mediawiki so we have proper per-namespace > > permissions). However that can easily be done later. the robots thing is > > already a config option. > > > > Furthermore, all these various "config" related changes are trivial to > > change > > after the fact if people discover they want something different. > > > > New namespaces get created for other wikis all the time. This has > > traditionally > > been something that has entirely been up to the community to decide for > > themselves. I don't understand why enwiki gets treated so differently. > > > > >Key minimum requirements for launch are being hashed out at > > >https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace > > > > Kind of seems odd this is being written up on mediawiki.org, for something > > that > > is in essence a config change coming out of enwikipedia community. Its not > > like > > there are non-user facing technical hurtles to surmount. There's no new db > > schema being proposed or anything like that. Bawolff has a hard time understanding what most of us are having a hard time understanding. The piece you're missing, Bawolff, is that after this new namespace was proposed and passed as simply a new namespace, Steven Walling took it over by submitting the supposed bug for implementation (bug 57315), which was actually for something much more than a new namespace. While I'm sure he originally had the best of intentions, it was pointed out thereafter that his plan for implementation was markedly different from the accepted proposal that was supposed to have originated it. Rather than admit his error as a good Wikipedia administrator should, he's made every effort to outwardly cling to his original position like a good infallible corporate manager would: He attempted to pass off the bloat in his proposed implementation as "requirements" for the namespace, when they had actually been some new ideas he wanted to tinker with. The claim that these were "requirements" was again pointed out as erroneous, but he still insisted on making some list of requirements regardless, rather than simply letting it go. This is the show of complexity where none is actually necessary that you're seeing now and have astutely pointed out. And this is, in my mind, an example of the type of behavior that has brought the relationship between the WMF and the Wikipedia community to the sour state it is. And it felt good to get that out. Hope we can get some actual stuff done now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
