<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)