David Gerard wrote:
Transclusion of article text is a VERY bad thing. It's basically a way to put a handle into lots of articles to change them without it showing on recent changes. I really don't see why wikiprojects think they can vote to pull shit like this, and why those templates shouldn't just be subst: and then promptly deleted.
I also think the transclusion is a Bad Thing, but I don't think the text should be subst:ed since that would leave Wikipedia with multiple copies of the same text scattered around. If they later need fixing it's unlikely that a new arrival will know where to find the other copies. I believe these transcluded articles should simply be linked to instead, just like every other similar case on Wikipedia where there's a "summary" article covering multiple detailed "sectional" articles (TV shows or movie franchises, for example).
The discussion of this issue seems to have petered out about ten days ago on all the talk: pages where I was following it, does anyone know if there's more recent discussion someplace I've missed?