Template talk:FileProv

File: v. Document:

What is the difference between the File: and Document: namespaces? Is there a policy which explains this anywhere? Robin 23:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I know; A bit of a mess. The 'File' namespace is part of the standard installation and intended for predefined mime extension files. I've always felt that images ought to be separated from document type files (pdf, doc etc) but simply went alonf with the standard install when I was less familiar with all its creases. The 'Document' namespace is not part of the standard install. I created it specifically to hold pre-authored articles, reports etc, published elsewhere and which needed to be credited and left in their original state (apart from extra links, formatting etc). Document:The Three Establishment Model of Covert Politics has been changed by it's author oblivious to all this. Hence new info in its talk page. There is now a LOT of content in the 'Document namespace so any changes will need thinking thru carefully. My first pass at explaining all this, written a couple of years ago is at Help:WikispooksHelp. Any suggestions/alteration welcome --Peter P 07:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Document Namespace

I've been thinking about this some more. The site does not need the 'Document' namespace in order to maintain the present division (ie cut-and-paste type documents credited to an author that should not be edited, and regular articles) All that is needed is the current 'DocProv' template. The problem is that there are now several hundred articles in the 'Document' namespace with no obvious/simple way to move them and maintain the distinction; not least because the earlier ones did not employ the DocProv template. Also, it would be better NOT to have the 'Document' workspace because 1) it degrades search engine ranking on the article title since nobody is likely to preface their search with "Document:" and 2) it's current use adds to complexity/confusion for new editors. Hmmmm.... Suggestions??? --Peter P 19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of "file:*" for ones that can't be edited, e.g. PDFs, JPGs etc. Which leaves "document:*" for ones that could be wikified but shouldn't work as ordinary wiki pages. Having a separate namespace does at least clarify which is in which category, though, yes, perhaps DocProv could work to clarify this by e.g. changing the back color or font etc. No, perhaps it's good as is? Robin 07:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

Maybe FileProv could be replaced with DocProv? Are there any significant differences which prevent this? Robin (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2013 (GMT)

I agree it would make sense for the Primary 'Document' template to be used for all documents (ie pages in the current 'Doc' category. My only reservation concerns preserving both the metadata and data currently residing in pages that use the FileProv template. There are a lot of them too. It will make the DocProv template even more complex but is probably worth doing if you are up for a challenge. No rush though. Frankly I'd prefer to sort out all the broken author and date links first. One other thing, the above exchange indicates a possible misunderstanding about namespaces. NS's 'File' and 'Image' are synonymous; they are NOT separate namespaces ie 'File' is a system alias for 'Image' - same applies to 'Project' and 'Wikispooks'. Maybe we should agree a division of the work involved and review progress periodically. --Peter P (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2013 (GMT)