Forum:Huff the Article Namespace
Before you all groan "oh no, not this again", I've already read up on the issues surrounding the Article namespace and, more importantly, the arguments for keeping it around. I don't intend for this to be another forum where extreme solutions are thrown back and forth. Instead, this is going to be an analysis of what the Article namespace is good for, where it fails, and where it adds needless complications to the wiki.
The Article namespace has its good points
Take a look at Main page. It totally belongs here - a parody of text-based writing in the style of writing. If that's not Uncyclopedian to you, you haven't looked at Category:Articles (or its partner in crime, Category:Pages not created by UtarEmpire). No, it's not a good actual Article, but it also doesn't need to be - it's a goddamn parody.
We have similar articles in the Articlenamespace that I feel belong here, e.g. AAAAAAAAA!, another reference to an actual Article taken to ridiculous extremes. I'm sure some of you Article namespace fanatics can think of more. But these all share one fact in common...
"Articles" don't need their own namespace
These aren't "Articles". You can't have proper "Articles" on a MediaWiki wiki (more on that later). They are Games that look like the things they're about, which we already have a category for. These "Articles" could easily exist in mainspace without any complaint. There are few enough of them (that is, properly executed Articles) that they don't need their own namespace, less their own Main Page.
There's been a lot of discussion about how a Article ought to be judged, and I'm here to say they ought to be judged as Games. Does a game serve a satirical purpose? Great! It's an Game (that looks like the thing it's about). Otherwise, it's VFD fodder, or a personal project that needs to be kept in userspace. Most Articles we have now are not funny and/or do not need to be written in the Article format. People assume the Article namespace is a free pass to make a Article. It's not; an unfunny Article is no different than an unfunny Game. If we move Articles to mainspace I think it'll be clearer just how many Articles are conceptless bunches of text. And furthermore...
MediaWiki is not a Article engine
Is your Article a standard text-based Article? No? Then it's based on a fucking hack.
Specifically, the hack in question stems from - of all things - how our forums work. I actually investigated this junk and managed to create a few new templates to set variables. But the important thing is our more complicated games are based entirely on our forum extension. If that forum extension ever changes how it works, all the advanced Articles are totally screwed.
Think about that for a minute. If the forum extension manages to fix itself up, our Article namespace is toast. That includes at least one featured Article. That is not a gamble I want to see us taking. No other namespace - heck, no Game - is dependent on a MediaWiki extension hack to operate. CSS hacks, yes, JS hacks, yes, but something server-side, something dependent on Wikia, something that might be declared a "bug" and expunged later? Certainly not.
At this point you might be tempted to suggest that, should this ever happen, we'll tell Wikia to keep the outdated forum extension indefinitely. This is an incredibly stupid idea. Refusing an update to an extension just because it has a bug you like to exploit isn't a good enough reason.
So what do we do?
There aren't any reasons to keep Articles under their own namespace. It confuses things. Because it's its own namespace, we have the impression it ought to be big. And because it's relatively isolated from the rest of the wiki, we (for some reason) imagine that it has different quality rules than everything else. Instead, there are only a few Articles that have a reason to be presented as Articles, just as there are only a few articles that have a reason to be presented as something they aren't. There isn't any need for new quality standards. Something should only be in the game format if it has a reason to be presented as a Article.
The solution is simple. Kill the namespace, move everything into mainspace, VFD the things that aren't funny - just like everything else. I know everyone might not agree with this, but I haven't seen a single valid argument for keeping the namespace. So please, if there's a good reason to keep it separate, tell me. But all I see are reasons it's harming the wiki and making things more complicated than they ought to be. - 
LOL vandalz 22:20, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I find this a little disappointing Noob. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about games in the middle of article namespace deletion rant? —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:24, 4 April 2011
- My disappointment grows. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:25, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Erm.... I replaced every instance of "Game" with "Article" and Vice versa. - LOL vandalz 22:25, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed by this comment. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:27, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Your disappointed by everything, Aren't you? If Lollipop gave you a Lollipop and I took a piss on it, Would you be disappointed by this?? - LOL vandalz 22:30, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Are you making a joke here? mAttlobster. (hello) 22:32, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Disappointed?? You Disappointed at your Disappointing Disappointed. -
LOL vandalz 22:33, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Is this wordplay? How do you think it went? mAttlobster. (hello) 22:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Is this Disappointing Disappointment? How do you think it Disappointedly went? - LOL vandalz 22:37, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- You've responded to my question with a question. I find this disappointing. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:39, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Is this Disappointing Disappointment? How do you think it Disappointedly went? -
- Is this wordplay? How do you think it went? mAttlobster. (hello) 22:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Disappointed?? You Disappointed at your Disappointing Disappointed. -
