Wick Migration

@Ace: Make a namespaced redirect for Jean de Florette, so Film.Jean De Florette. Also, Jean de Florette probably should not be indexed on the Films of the 1980s page, as we don't index redirects because then they mess up the order if someone is clicking through the index. You should probably wrap the index tags around it so it doesn't index. (E.g.
[[/index]]
%% this is a redirect
* ''Film/JeanDeFlorette''
[[index]]
for the code.)

eta: never mind, misunderstood.

You can pothole one of the examples—the indexing code is smart enough to handle that. So

* ''Film/ManonDesSources''

and

* ''[[Film/ManonDesSources Jean de Florette]]''

eta x2: Also, we generally prefer to use the standard English name if there is one, so the work should probably be at Manon of the Spring, since that's the official English title (confirmed by IMDB).

edited 20th Mar '13 6:24:40 PM by Xtifr

I'll let someone else handle the work name change to Manon of the Spring, if you don't mind: I find the procedure to do so a bit too complicated, and I don't want to screw up. Please don't hesitate to warn me by PM if someone do so: I'll be glad to take care of the wicks.

edited 20th Mar '13 9:41:04 PM by AceNoctali

The Norwegian animated movie Pinchcliffe Grand Prix incorrectly use the Film/ namespace.

Should it be in Animation/ or WesternAnimation/ ?

^ Norwegian animated works would go under Western Animation.

So, we're around 86.5% on the amount of works moved from Main. I think we could officially encourage people to use namespaces now. Anybody agree or disagree?

If it gets us rid of the mainspace redirects faster, why not.

edited 22nd Mar '13 11:40:36 PM by Koveras

We've been officially encouraging it for quite some time now. New work pages made in main are an automatic cut (after moving everything to the proper namespace). About the only other thing I think we could do is start banning people if they persist in refusing to include namespaces in their examples, and I think that might be a bit extreme.

In most case, I think it's just that tropers are not aware they're supposed to always include namespaces. There may be some refusing to use them, but I think they are few. It's more an ignorance of the changed standard (as with hottips, for example, which shouldn't be used anymore, yet I see recent examples).

It is already in the editing tips... don't know how to get it more coverage.

An announcement might get their attention.

Two technical requests:

1. Is it worthwhile to add links to the pertinent forum threads on Namespace?
2. Is the guideline about cutlisting Main/ pages (not redirects) with less than 10 inbounds official enough to add it to Creating New Redirects and How to Move a Page?

Coming from a non-technical person, as you know:

1. Please do.
2. That one still confuses me; I assume you're following it, but not all your cutlist requests are accepted, IIRC.

1. Will do.
2. Because some were redirects.

I do not think issuing suspentions to people for repetedly not namespacing is too extreme, tbh.

My question is, what if you namespace a link and find that the works page has not been namespaced, assuming you do not have the time/inclination to do the namespacing yourself, is it better to leave a redlink that is properly namespaced knowing that eventually someone will namespace the work or is it better to unnamespace it and create extra work for whoever eventually does do the namespacing and wick migration? Or is it better to unredlink it by creating a redirect on the namespaced page? I am not big into the last option because I am not sure the metheod for editing redirected pages is common knowledge and I am worried it would discourage people for doing namespace work, but IDK really.

I'd say Namespacing a link, even if it creates a red link, isn't too big a deal since anyway the corresponding page will be moved sooner or later. Removing a namespace (unless it is incorrect) is really doing things backward. You can never know if the corresponding article won't be moved for weeks, or if it is in the process of being moved right now — in the later case it is quite annoying to have to correct the link again.

Creating a redirect to avoid the red link isn't exactly encouraged, but I don't think it's a big deal either. It can allow starting the wick migration early, so it's no problem in my book. Moving the page into the redirect afterward isn't that complex, it's just a matter of cut-and-paste in the adress bar.

edited 27th Mar '13 11:27:00 AM by StFan

I've remarked that pages like Classical Mythology, Norse Mythology, Tanabata, etc., are classified as works, but have yet to be assigned a namespace.

What namespace should be used for these? Do we need to introduce a new one, like "Myth/"?

Same thing for Disney Theme Parks, in fact. Should we have a "ThemePark/" namespace too?

edited 27th Mar '13 11:35:55 AM by StFan

I distinctly remember them being discussed here.

I am happy to announce that, with two small exceptions, everything currently on Science Fiction Literature has been namespaced!

The exceptions are: a list of works by a prolific Russian SF author, which is really more of a sub-index and probably shouldn't be namespaced, and some Tranformers-related pages that really need to be sorted out somehow. They're more like franchise pages, but I'm not entirely convinced that Transformers needs half-a-dozen franchise pages!

In any case, even with those minor exceptions, I think it's a pretty big step. It also means that it's now safe to watchlist that index, since it's not going to get hit with daily namespace edits. :)

edited 27th Mar '13 2:55:03 PM by Xtifr

The thread you mention discussed whether to create new namespaces, but I don't think it resulted in any kind of decisive decision.

So, I reiterates the question: what do we do with Mythologies articles? Should the Franchise/ namespace be used as a catch-all for these?

I thought the conclusion was to use Literature/, but it's been a while since I read that discussion. Oral tradition in general is treated as a special form of literature.

That was my impression of the decision, too.

There was no agreement yet on where the Mythology pages should go. We decided in this thread that fairy tales and folk tales should go to Literature/, but we didn't really talk about the "mythology overview" pages (Classical Mythology, Norse Mythology etc) then.

The problem with these pages (unlike fairy tales, heroic epics or other mythological texts) is that they are not about any specific work. There might be a point in sorting them as Useful Notes/.

I once suggested a Verse/ namespace, but Fast Eddie was against it. Someone proposed a Mythos/ namespace a while ago, but nothing came of it.

Commented in the other thread.

Oral Tradition would not at all be an appropriate namespace for Mythology pages, or for anything on this wiki since we can't actually trope works that aren't recorded at all.

I'll copy what I said on another thread on this topic:

We are in the middle of a long and difficult TRS project to split the Oral Tradition medium from Mythology and the other related genres, and give them separate pages with meaningful descriptions. Please do not reverse that decision and hard work by conflating the two again.

I went over in exhaustive detail all the many reasons why they aren't synonyms in the Oral Tradition TRS thread. In summary, lots of Oral Tradition isn't mythology at all, lots of mythology isn't at all oral even in origin, no oral work can actually be troped on the wiki anyway so the Mythology pages can't be about those, and conflating them again will promote the same confusion that I started that TRS to fix. It would be like reviving Web Original, and then merging Comic Books into it because they're "the same as Web Comics."

Mythos, Myth, and Mythology would be all fine namespaces, and not misuse.

Literature, though not ideal, would be more accurate than Oral Tradition since at least most myths are written as stories (instead of paintings or theatre).

Fairy Tales and Folktales are all troped in their written forms and belong in Literature/ (or Disney/ for the Disney films, or Theatre/ if there are pages for stage adaptations). Pages on individual mythic works belong in whatever medium they were made in (Literature/ for Theogony, Theatre/ for Oedipus Rex, etc.) The pages describing each genre (Fairy Tales, Folklore, Mythology, Legend, Sacred Literature, etc.) should have the same namespace and page type as Urban Fantasy, High Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Romance.

edited 28th Mar '13 7:58:21 AM by ArcadesSabboth

Ok, aside from King Arthur (which seems to me to fall into the general question of "what do we do with mythology?"), everything on Classic Literature and 19th Century Literature is properly namespaced! At least for the moment.

I can't take much credit for the first—when I got there, there was only one work that hadn't been namespaced (not counting King Arthur, which may not even belong on that page—and if it does, then our other mythology pages might also, once we sort them out).

Anyway, that's basically, all books from before 1900. Or, at least, all books that someone had bothered to add to the proper index...