On Mar 18, 2008, at 1:21 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
I would only worry about it becoming unclear what went in the "main" article versus the "appendices" -- one man's cruft is another's treasure. But, this would ideally have the effect of making articles *a lot* more readable, as appendicy-type material was cut out to a separate page. I would support it.
This is why I've deliberately avoided adding policy on the use of this namespace into the proposal - it's something that I think we'd have a very hard time legislating prior to actual discussion on articles.
I just discovered the articles in this category : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bibliographies_by_subject
These sorts of bibliographies would make *ideal* appendices off their main article. As it is, they're a little unwieldy as articles. But imagine, if every good or even half-way decent article had an associated "bibliography" tab, along with "appendices" and the main article... that would be pretty cool.
That's very similar to the Citizendium method - my hesitance about it is that extensible interfaces can be a problem for us - it's much of what went wrong with categories.
-Phil