I propose that a "Forum" namespace is created, which would contain all forum discussions. Interest in a Forum namespace was expressed by some board members during today's board meeting (November 16).
We took the idea of a forum from the RuneScape Wiki, but we did not create a Forum namespace like they did. This is because creating a namespace would essentially lock-in the decision to use a forum, and we couldn't have been 100% certain we'd make active use of the forum when it was created. One year of active forum use later, with all of us clearly understanding the importance of this feature, there is no longer any realistic worry that we cease using the forum.
The benefit of a Forum namespace is largely convenience. It quite significantly shortens all forum page titles, it makes searching for forum topics simpler (without namespace you type "MCW:Forum/Title", with namespace you type "F:Title"), and I believe it might solve Delvin's discussion-following problem (discussed here) since it would be a purely discussion namespace, though I'm not completely sure. I think I'm forgetting some additional points made during the meeting, so if anyone has anything to add, please do. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support Forum namespace creation as proposer. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Unsure - There would still be some lingering issues to address. One is whether "Forum" is a talk namespace in of itself and would be included in the "all-discussions" category in recent changes. The other issue is what to do with MCW:Admin noticeboard after a forum namespace is created, as it is still a talk page in the content namespace and still missing from the "all-discussions" filter in RC. Plus, MCW:AN is also outside of the MCW:Forum/subpages list. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can just add the Forum namespace in addition to the "all-discussions" filter. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- That still leaves MCW:Admin noticeboard as the last remaining page not covered in RC. Should that page be moved and redirected to Forum:Admin noticeboard? I can't think of any other way that would get MCW:AN included with all forum and talk page discussions in recent changes. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Myself, I simply put it on my watchlist, but you've said that you don't want to clog your watchlist... -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do not want to clog my watchlist. I'd prefer a system identical to User:Sonicwave/Talk_feed but directly in recent changes itself so I can set the view accordingly (transclusion makes the view hard-coded, which is somewhat unhelpful). Notably, MCW:AN doesn't even work in Sonicwave's discussion tracker yet. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- The admin noticeboard would remain where it is. You can add it to your watchlist if you want to follow it, however it's mainly for reaching admins so you shouldn't miss any relevant discussions there anyway. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support - I cannot think of any downsides to this change, and the upsides mentioned in the post are well worth the mild effort required to move content and update whatever needs to be updated like the discord bot hooks. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support — 👁 Image
Delycache (Talk | Contributions) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Currently, when a forum topic is deleted before you open it from your email notifications (for example), then you'll land on a page that does provide a "view deletion log" link, but which doesn't actually fill in the form correctly. This means when you missed a new topic, you won't be able to reach the deletion log of it. It has something to do with category links and pages not cooperating for the current forum or something. I don't really know. But when we move to a namespace, would this problem still exist? Otherwise, I 👁 Image
Support the move, would be nice to have shorter page names. - Jack McKalling (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support - It wouldn't change much and there is no problems in having a new namespace. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 08:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- This still faces one problem I brought up with the tutorial namespace thing: where will the main forum page go? How will there be a quick link back to it from the rest of the forum pages? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1) Forum:Contents I think, like Help:Contents. 2) At the top of every forum page there is a header box (the grass), the “index” link takes you back to the main forum. If you’ve been using the “Minecraft Wiki:Forum” link (personally I have) it might be annoying to remember to use the other link, but I don’t think that’s a big deal. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
15:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hah, I never noticed that! But I think the main forum page should be Forum:Main or Forum:Forum or something similar. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 16:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Changing status to 👁 Image
About 75%-support -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- With the namespace and some categories we can also very easily implement different types of forums, should the need for that ever arise. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- What if we eventually decide to abandon an already made forum namespace? I've heard removing custom namespaces from a wiki is very painful. — BabylonAS 14:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- We’ve been using the forum for over a year very actively, it’s not a realistic idea that we’d abandon this feature unless we were forced to for some weird technical reason. But if it was removed for whatever reason, just like if a tutorial namespace were removed, or a spin-off namespace, then it is what it is. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
15:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it wouldn't even be a big deal at all. We can always move stuff out of the namespace, and we don't have to actually delete a namespace when we don't use it. - Jack McKalling (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Question: would "forum talk" be necessary? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Generally all namespaces have a talk counterpart. In the forum case that namespace wouldn't see a lot of use though, with only "Forum talk:Contents" (or however we call our entry point) being relevant to discuss the content in question. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
