<lsanger(a)nupedia.com> writes:
> But no one has explicitly said the latter. In fact, it looks like the
> discussion is neither--it just looks like you're arguing about whether we
> should have subpages
I'm not arguing anything :) I'm just stating that I like subpages, and will
continue creating them, and organising my input with them, up until the exact
moment that the software stops me.
> As soon as we move to Magnus' software, the obvious solution will be
> [[Nirvana (rock band)]], etc.
And [[Nirvana (grunge band)]], [[Nirvana (band)]], [[Nirvana (60s band)]]
> Well, it might be easier for somebody to remember [[Baseball/History]] if
> he created or worked on that page, but if he had created [[history of
> baseball]], he'd no doubt find *that* easy to remember
I guess what I'm arguing is this.
At the moment 'pedia contains the following articles
[[History of the United States]]
[[Chinese history]]
[[Baseball/History]]
[[Film history]]
[[History of the internet]]
Now I don't *really* mind which it is, but [0]
Similarly, I could forsee (since hypotheticals seem more important than
actualities these days) it having:
[[Battle of Stalingrad]] [[Siege of Leningrad]] [[Normandy landings]]
But if I'm writing [[World War II/Stalingrad]] and want to link to Leningrad,
I think I'm gonna be able to figure out [[/Leningrad]], rather than [[Battle
of Leningrad]] or [[Siege of Leningrad]]. I think that *is* easier to link,
if not accidentally, but with minimum thought and effort on my behalf.
> The fact is that having subpages doesn't make pagenames any easier to
> remember.
It doesn't make known pagenames easier to remember, it makes the unknown ones
easy to deduce.
Right, I've said my piece, so I'll go and libel [[Bud Selig]] a bit more.
[0] I mind anything, to be honest.
I'm just stating my case.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)