I am genuinely curious as to why it's absurd.
I respect the decision, but I have no idea why it was made.
Slightly related, but perhaps a header of rejected namespaces and a short sentence why each one was rejected(if not a small page explaining this instead that the header could link to) may not be a bad idea as well. It actually prevents redone discussion on stuff that has zero chance of happening. Or at least, if a decision isn't agreed with, people can bring up reasons why, perhaps bringing some new ideas to light.
Shadow?I am not exactly sure what does go into a spoiler namespace. And since splitting spoilery tropes into their own namespace is a change in spoiler policy, it should be discussed in the spoiler policy topic.
I don't think we have an use for such an header, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanTo the extent that discussion is going to accomplish anything, it would belong in that thread.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Bumping this, so that we can get the Profile/ namespace finished up. Does anyone agree with using it for "characters that get their own pages and don't define franchises"?
I am asking because I am planning to disambiguate Firestorm between the DC Comics character and the action film from Hong Kong.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNew topic: is GameMod/
an official namespace?
There are already a few of them, but the Game Mod Index shows it is used rather haphazardly, many other Game Mods using simply VideoGame/ instead.
TV Tropes' very wikibot
Actually, a Spoiler/ namespace (more similar to Trivia/ and YMMV/ than work namespaces) for tropes that should be spoilered would help a lot. If people don't want to read spoilers, they would simply have to avoid clicking the spoiler tab.
Get rid of the walled garden
We only want to have that discussion in one place — the spoiler policy thread. Let's not have it in two places.
Now that I've settled the Gamemod/ namespace (only redirects remain for those that had a lot of inbounds), same question for the Doujinshi/
namespace.
It is not in the official Namespaces list, and only has five entries (including the index, which is Doujinshi.Doujinshi instead of simply Main.Doujinshi Index.
So, any chance it becomes an official namespace, or should the articles simply be moved? (Most of them to Manga/, I guess.)
I've also seen doujins put in the fanworks folder on trope pages (but still namespaced as manga).
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Fans and original creators make doujins. Japan, it's that kind of place.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here."It's pretty clear that we have a lot of pages dedicated to individual TV networks and the like, but it's always kind of bugged me that these pages use the Creator namespace instead of one more fitting for them. I guess you could argue that since networks tend to fund the creation of various shows and sometimes produce them in-house as well that they technically fit under that moniker, but I still don't think it works very well, since the Creator namespace is otherwise exclusively individual people (to my knowledge). So, would it be alright if networks got their own namespace? Most likely 'Network' or something to that effect? I think it'd make a bit more sense in the long run. Sure, I'm almost positive no one's confused because of them being there, but it's less about clearing up confusion and more applying a nice, simple layer of organization to the wiki."
I made this a separate thread by mistake, and someone directed me to this thread to ask. To those asking "well, why don't we have 'Author' or 'Director' or 'Actor' namespaces too?" ...I'd say that's a legitimate question. You know, considering that we have different namespaces for all the different mediums. You could argue that the concept of organizing various mediums is vastly different from organizing people of different professions, but... I don't really see how it is. Sure, the wiki is more tailored towards info about TV shows, cartoons, anime, etc. etc., but still.
Namespaces aren't intended to be super granular. They just need to separate things enough to keep them functionally distinct. It was decided a long time ago that having a single Creator/ namespace instead of tons of namespaces for different kinds of people would avoid the problem of how to handle someone who is, for example, an actor and a producer and a singer and a writer. Those pages do not occupy distinct roles on the wiki.
edited 24th Jan '14 1:13:44 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If we really felt like putting the effort into organizing things that way, if we had something to gain from it, I'd support splitting Creator. I don't see any particular benefit from doing so. Hell, we also have the indices to further organize if need be.
EDIT: for example, right now: Sci-Fi Channel is a Creator page and on the Network index. What do we really gain by using Network/ Sci Fi Channel?
edited 24th Jan '14 1:30:11 PM by Rotpar
But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you.Exactly this. Distinguish by indexes, not by namespaces. It's the same reason we have Film/ and not Science Fiction Film/.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Now we just have to wait until someone uses that argument for abolishing Anime, Manga, Comic Strip, Comic Book, and/or Western Animation as separate namespaces.
(Joking aside, I would not be terribly surprised if someone held Fighteer's post up as an argument for that the next time someone feels like bringing that old debate up.)
edited 24th Jan '14 2:27:33 PM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

We are not going to have a spoilers namespace. That's absurd.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"