User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima

The following section Hi Ottava Rima was
 * originally included in User talk:Ottava Rima,
 * lastly talked by Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC),
 * hurriedly archived into obscurity by Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC) by replacing it as follows:
 * Discussion was about a new namespace to do stuff that isn't really determined as to scope. Proposals and such on the matter should go on Colloquium. Discussion should go there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Colloquium
 * Colloquium


 * See also
 * User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive
 * See the details in the second last section Hi Ottava Rima.
 * User talk:Ottava Rima
 * User talk:Sj

Hi Ottava Rima
Thank you for visiting my user page. I wish you could do me justice and help me a lot.

May I propose via you the creation of a "Cite:" or the like namespace that would work similar to the "Template:" namespace, that is, on the basis of transclusion?

As the latter is coded as, so the former could be done as, e.g.: , or

which then would be replaced or transcluded by:

Bush, Vannevar (1945). "As We May Think." Atlantic Monthly (July) pp. 101-108

which is the includeonly content of the Cite:Bush V 1945 AWM page. Sincerely yours, --KYPark 08:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You would need to have a lot of entry options (Author Name=, Author Article=, Work Name=, Work Article=, etc). Is that what you want? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I suppose not. First have a look at World Brain. Then notice the following passage is transcluded selectively from that page simply by virtue of :

Pay no attention to the selectiveness but the transclusion itself, which is all that is needed in my proposal for a new "Cite:something" namespace, eg, "Cite:World Brain" that would transclude like the "Template:something" namespace, eg, Template:Navigate 20c as is used at the bottom of User:KYPark/1980. Given such a new namespace to control the citation data, aka, metadata, the naming rule should be set up. The best way would be using the author name and the publication year, eg, "Wells HG 1938" that may be further specified by adding "WB" for "World Brain," hence Cite:Wells HG 1938 WB rather than Cite:World Brain using the title, eg, "World Brain" which is often too long. Still too confusing, just pass by (or to the computer system developer). --KYPark 03:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a new namespace that works like that, you would have to submit something into the WMF. We don't handle that level of code here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems fair enough that I have to submit my proposal to the WMF. Indeed it would be great if all Wiki sisters could share the "Cite:" namespace as well as the "Image:" namespace. Nevertheless, I thought it could be a matter of Wikiversity's autonomy as well as the "Wikiversity:" namespace, for example, especially should it be needed for Wikiversity in particular, rather than elsewhere. But I would insist no more. Excuse me for all I've caused you. Thanks a lot for your time. --KYPark 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know anyone who has access to the source could and could alter the code to adapt to your needs. You could try User:Sj, as he is connected to the Foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your link to User:Sj, though I'm much more concerned with Wikiversity than WikiMedia at the moment. Someday I may edit Proposal for a referential strategy aiming to make Wikiversity a greater success than any other WM projects, believe me or not. As such, then, when the red link gets blue, it would better be brought to the attention of Wikiversity's top management. For me, men make reference and inference in a vital way, hence worth the two learning pillars. Wikipedia would rather make reference to the neutral third-party view but no original inference or research (NOR). However, neutral reference would be much better than the reliable third party "from nowhere" that may be nowhere! The reader should finally judge the neutrality or whatever of information rather than the intermediary. Such is called the "user-centered" perspective in information science. From this, the "Cite:" namespace could serve as a Wikiversity's strategy of choice, I wish. Sorry to make this sophisticated inference. --KYPark 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a typical suggestion for a new namespace, that requires discussion and proof of consensus by the Wikiversity community, and than a bug can be filed to have it done if there is support. That is neither a code nor a WMF matter. -- dark lama  02:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, the question would be if it would even be feasible, as bugzilla deals with the code changes and those who work with WMF are over at bugzilla. We can't just proposal/pass things that may not actually be supportable by the software. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating new namespaces is very much supported by the software. Wikiversity already has 2 or 3 more than the default. -- dark lama  03:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And they can do what he wanted? Perhaps I just can't really grasp the mechanics of his request to see it. I'm not a technology/computer person, so, it isn't really my area. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. The content of any page from any namespace can be included/transincluded on another page. I think they just want a dedicated namespace for cited sources, nothing particularly different/significant/special about that from a software perspective. -- dark lama  11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know how the use of template works, but doesn't he want to have it connected to Wikipedia? See above in his examples. I was figuring that the space would have to work like File, where it transcludes from Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he/she mentioned that it would be nice if all projects could share the Cite: namespace like how the File: namespace works with files from Wikimedia Commons, after your comments about the need to ask the WMF. I think he/she is more interested or focused on how the namespace could immediately benefit Wikiversity though more than whether all projects share it. Anyways what KYPark wants could be something worth getting clarification on, I got that what KYPark really wanted was Cite just for Wikiversity, but would be willing to go further with it if it requires going to the WMF. -- dark lama  16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia could benefit from a Cite: namespace, very much. A page in a WP namespace would include the citation information, all except for page number, perhaps (if it's to an article, of course, it would include the page numbers for the whole article). Categories could be placed on the page to indicate the category of source, which could include the results of discussions as to whether or not the source is reliable for various purposes. An MfD on a Cite page would be arguing that there is no possible use of this source anywhere on Wikipedia, not even on Talk pages. Because if it's a "fringe source," for example, it would be tagged as such, and history would show that it had been tagged. And the talk page would then contain discussion and process regarding the usability of the source, and, of course, Links Here would tell anyone quickly where the source is used, when the Cite space comes into common usage. The real point here is to create a "library" of annotated and categorized sources! --Abd 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Outdent: "if all projects could share the Cite: namespace like how the File: namespace" That is what I thought, therefore, it would need to be a WMF thing. Do you understand why I said to contact the foundation about it? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You suggested contacting the foundation before he/she mentioned anything about the Cite: namespace acting how the File: namespace acts. If that is what he/she wants than he/she can fill out a bug report making that suggestion, or suggest it on the strategy wiki. If all he/she wants is to suggest the creation of the Cite: namespace on English Wikiversity, bring it up for discussion and consensus on the Colloquium. My point is KYPark's original comment was simple: a suggestion that English Wikiversity should have a Cite: namespace, which is a English Wikiversity issue not a foundation issue. -- dark lama  22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have things backward. Wikiversity cannot vote on a namespace for a database that does not exist. Wikimedia would have to approve of said Commons like database before a namespace could even be feasible. If Wikimedia refuses to approve of such a database, then it doesn't matter how many people here that may find it useful. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WM may not approve such a new namespace or database so that the WV community need not even discuss how vital it would be here regardless of elsewhere. Is that what you mean, Ottava Rima? Even if WV should not vote on it, WV should look for its own strategy for survival and do its best to realize it, I believe, as darklama and perhaps most may well do.


 * And, In response to my comment "I thought it could be a matter of Wikiversity's autonomy as well as the 'Wikiversity:' namespace, for example," you might have mentioned the matter of WM approval, instead of your excuse "I honestly don't know anyone who has access to the source ... and could alter the code to adapt to your needs." --KYPark 05:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia deals with the code, and I sent you to Sj as he would know who within the Foundation could handle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you think Wikiversity got the School, Topic, and Portal namespaces? Namespaces do not require a new database or changes to an existing database. Wikimedia leaves the decision of what namespaces to have up to individual projects, so Wikiversity simply needs to show consensus. KYPark wasn't asking for a Commons like database, just a new namespace. The idea of Commons like database didn't come into the picture until after you told KYPark that permission had to be obtained from Wikimedia. You seem to be missing there are two distinct ideas here, and I think its pointless to urge with you who is getting things backwards. -- dark lama  15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unsure where either School, Topic, or Portal namespaces are connected to a non-Wikiversity project (i.e. Commons) in the way Cite is desired to be. We would need Foundation approval to request the new project, then the individual projects can accept it or not. This is not a Wikiversity issue yet as there is nothing for Wikiversity to accept. Feasibility comes before action. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that Ottava Rima considers moving this to the Colloquium? That has probably become the appropriate venue for this discussion now but I'll leave it for Ottava to decide whether and how to move this. Adambro 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[The End]

Content marking and parking

 * What are marking and parking?
 * Content : Wells, H. G. (1938). World Brain. Doubleday, Doran & Co., Garden City, NY.
 * Marking : Wells HG 1938
 * Parking

Strategic considerations

 * For reference to be made easily and precisely.
 * For pages to serve as the grass-roots or bottom-up building blocks of the documentation network.
 * For quality to surpass the other citational systems, especially of full-automation and imprecision, such as CiteSeer, ACM Portal, and the like.
 * For the social network and the small-world network to become more viable and visible.

Additional contents
== Authors == == Table of Contents == == Abstract == == Extracts == == Critiques == == References ==