Please show a link to community consensus for this change.

jeluf wrote:

Please also provide a name for the discussion namespace

jamesjoshualim wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

Please show a link to community consensus for this change.

(In reply to comment #2)

Please also provide a name for the discussion namespace

Discussion has been taking place on the Tagalog Wikipedia, but consensus has not yet been achieved. That's currently being done now at the local village pump: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usapang_Wikipedia:Kapihan#Portal_Namespace.

The namespaces would be localized as "Puntahan" and "Usapang puntahan" for the namespace and the discussion namespace. However, this may be tentative: the translation is based on the current translation for the Community Portal, and there may be editors who might prefer "Portada" and "Usapang portada" as the translations.

Josh, can you ask again the community about the Portal namespace?
Once consensus has been reached, please reopen this bug.

jamesjoshualim wrote:

(In reply to comment #4)

Josh, can you ask again the community about the Portal namespace?
Once consensus has been reached, please reopen this bug.

The question has been on our Village Pump for at least the last three months, and editors should be able to make judgement on it or not. We don't archive regularly anyway, and when we do, it's usually due to size constraints, not length of time. At either rate, I hope to get the namespace issue over with: we have four portals on the Tagalog Wikipedia which are being recognized as articles.

Dear Josh, can you please update on the status of this request?

Looks like the namespace names should be:

Portada
Usapang Portada

There is already pages using those prefixes:
http://tl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natatangi%3ATalatuntunan+ng+unlapi&prefix=Portada&namespace=0&uselang=en

And some talks pages to (in NS_TALK):
http://tl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natatangi%3ATalatuntunan+ng+unlapi&prefix=Usapan%3APortada&namespace=0&uselang=en

So I guess we can deploy the change. Reopening bug.

jamesjoshualim wrote:

(In reply to comment #6)

Dear Josh, can you please update on the status of this request?

As far as I know, the discussion has stood silent owing to the fact that a lot of our editors have gone in and out of the project recently, and a lot of new editors are generally very apathetic about these types of discussions. However, I am still very hopeful that this will be passed soon.

Done, uncontroversial change and a small not so active wiki